[thecavemaster]

It takes a lot of guts and desperation to leave your home, risk your life in the desert or at sea, go somewhere where you don't know a soul, and live in fear and debt. The fact is this: much of what's driving human migration is the fact that 80% of the world's wealth is being controlled in the industrialized West by 20% of the world's population. Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly... maybe they never got the Judeo-Christian memo about being kind to foreigners and strangers.... The 20% who have all the wealth?... They like the nannies from Guatemala who take care of their children, the field hands from Mexico that pick the fruits and vegetables... and who do it on the cheap so that that 80% can become 85%....

[Fenix]

I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem at all with immigrants. However, I have a big problem with illegals.

[Beef]

I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem at all with immigrants. However, I have a big problem with illegals.

Exactly!

[thecavemaster]

Whether one is a "legal" immigrant or not, I stand by what I said in the thread starter. Period. I don't think a person leaves their home country (usually a country gripped by poverty and governmental corruntion) to come to a new country based on a desire to be a law breaker. Desperation, desire to send money back to family...a chance, an opportunity. It is hard for me to resent that, as I think I would do the same were the situations reversed.

[Old School]

Whether one is a "legal" immigrant or not, I stand by what I said in the thread starter. Period. I don't think a person leaves their home country (usually a country gripped by poverty and governmental corruntion) to come to a new country based on a desire to be a law breaker. Desperation, desire to send money back to family...a chance, an opportunity. It is hard for me to resent that, as I think I would do the same were the situations reversed.

I agree with Fenix, I don't have a provlem with the one's that are here legally. I just don't think it's fair to the ones that have gone through the hole legalization process to become U.S. Citizens, and now some politicians are wanting to grant these illegals U.S. citizenship just because they are in the U.S. without knowing their background. Why are these illegals afraid to go through the legalization process? It looks like to me if they wanted to become legal citizens they would be more than willing to go through the process.

[BasketBallonlyfan]

I just think it is pretty amazing because every post that thecavemaster makes is either putting down this country or it politics. It makes a person wonder why if this country and its way of doing business is so bad to the rest of the world, why people would take such a big chance in coming here against all the adversity.

[DevilsWin]

I don't mind them coming here as long as they don't mind signing the register. It's the Drug Cartells and the Smugglers that are the problem. Not the honest people trying to better themselves.

[Old School]

I don't mind them coming here as long as they don't mind signing the register. It's the Drug Cartells and the Smugglers that are the problem. Not the honest people trying to better themselves.

IMO the honest one's would not mind going through the legalization process to become an U.S. citizen.

[thecavemaster]

I just think it is pretty amazing because every post that thecavemaster makes is either putting down this country or it politics. It makes a person wonder why if this country and its way of doing business is so bad to the rest of the world, why people would take such a big chance in coming here against all the adversity.

Would you care to explain how finding empathy with and for those who cross borders is putting down this country? Also, what I mostly argued was that America is NOT a Christian nation, nor is any nation now on the globe. America is a place where one can make a minimum wage of $5.00+...which is pretty good given the exchange rate with the peso. Economic desperation drives most immigrants in today's market, more than escape from persecution or the desire for freedom of speech. I happen to believe that the US military targets the poor for its foot soldiers, which, apparently, Basketballonlyfan, rankled you.

[thecavemaster]

IMO the honest one's would not mind going through the legalization process to become an U.S. citizen.

You ever tried getting a green card? It's not like you go up to an immigration official and say, "Hey, it's pretty rough where I live in Mexico. Give me a green card." I cannot back up on this: economic desperation motivates the large majority of illegal immigrants, not nefarious activities.

[Old School]

You ever tried getting a green card? It's not like you go up to an immigration official and say, "Hey, it's pretty rough where I live in Mexico. Give me a green card." I cannot back up on this: economic desperation motivates the large majority of illegal immigrants, not nefarious activities.

I did not say it would be easy, or that it would happen quickly, but if a person is really trying to better themself they would follow the laws set fourth by this country to become a U.S. citizens.

[NEXT]

So does stealing............

[thecavemaster]

I did not say it would be easy, or that it would happen quickly, but if a person is really trying to better themself they would follow the laws set fourth by this country to become a U.S. citizens.

I didn't quite understand the "stealing"... referring to? As far as bettering oneself, once in a homeless shelter I heard a volunteer ask a man how he came to be homeless. He said, "When you're hungry, it don't much matter why." When you are hungry, and your children are hungry, and a way is offered that might ease the desperation, I'm not sure complex legal processes come so much into play. I don't disagree that legal immigration is preferable. However, desperation forces the hand.

[thecavemaster]

So does stealing............

Now I may get it...you are saying that economic desperation often motivates people who steal. I would agree with that. Stealing is, of course, antithetical to society, as is hoarding wealth and refusal to share, which, if criminalized, would certanly flood the jails and prisons with a whole new breed of convict...

[More Cowbell]

So does stealing............

Now I may get it...you are saying that economic desperation often motivates people who steal. I would agree with that. Stealing is, of course, antithetical to society, as is hoarding wealth and refusal to share, which, if criminalized, would certanly flood the jails and prisons with a whole new breed of convict...

All he was saying was that just because an activity is motivated by economic desperation does not make it right. Both sneaking into this country, and stealing from others, are both illegal per our country's laws. Whether or not they are considered ethically acceptable when one is faced with a desperate situation could be debated.

Lots of criminals throughout history have probably committed acts of theft, robbery, and even murder, all because they have found themselves in a bad economic position. Does that make it okay to break the law in those conditions? The analogy of illegal immigration to stealing is indeed a valid one.

[thecavemaster]

All he was saying was that just because an activity is motivated by economic desperation does not make it right. Both sneaking into this country, and stealing from others, are both illegal per our country's laws. Whether or not they are considered ethically acceptable when one is faced with a desperate situation could be debated.

Lots of criminals throughout history have probably committed acts of theft, robbery, and even murder, all because they have found themselves in a bad economic position. Does that make it okay to break the law in those conditions? The analogy of illegal immigration to stealing is indeed a valid one.

Again, when your children are hungry, you don't exactly have the luxury of debating "ethical acceptability." For me, illegal immigration is a bit deeper than a simple is it "right" or is it "wrong" equation. I think it would be helpful to get to know actual flesh and blood illegal immigrants, live among them and see what they have to endure. Is Robin Hood the same as the Enron executives who swindled millions? Or, does motive, intent matter? If stealing is stealing is stealing, then Robin Hood and Al Capone are no different.

[Fenix]

Again, when your children are hungry, you don't exactly have the luxury of debating "ethical acceptability." For me, illegal immigration is a bit deeper than a simple is it "right" or is it "wrong" equation. I think it would be helpful to get to know actual flesh and blood illegal immigrants, live among them and see what they have to endure. Is Robin Hood the same as the Enron executives who swindled millions? Or, does motive, intent matter? If stealing is stealing is stealing, then Robin Hood and Al Capone are no different.

Robin Hood and Al Capone are different if you want to present your argument from an ethical standpoint. However, if we are talking about the law there is no difference because stealing is stealing. To act as though you're the only one who feels empathy for those born into poverty is absurd. You also act as though hardworking, trustworthy Mexicans are the only people that want to come into this country illegaly. You fail to mention the gangsters and the drug lords that come in, along with terrorists.

[More Cowbell]

Robin Hood and Al Capone are different if you want to present your argument from an ethical standpoint. However, if we are talking about the law there is no difference because stealing is stealing.

Exactly Fenix, I was getting ready to post the same thing. The whole point of my earlier post is that the person who compared illegal immigration to stealing made a valid analogy. You could try to justify any illegal act, including stealing or sneaking into the country, by citing economic hardship, and ethically those activities may be acceptable. But that does not change the fact that they are illegal.

No one is saying these are bad people, but the fact that they are breaking the law can not be debated.

[thecavemaster]

Exactly Fenix, I was getting ready to post the same thing. The whole point of my earlier post is that the person who compared illegal immigration to stealing made a valid analogy. You could try to justify any illegal act, including stealing or sneaking into the country, by citing economic hardship, and ethically those activities may be acceptable. But that does not change the fact that they are illegal.

No one is saying these are bad peoplete, but the fact that they are breaking the law can not be debated.

I think, if you look at the thread starter, my intent was not to argue the illegal/legal immigration point, nor to suggest that I am the "only one" who has empathy for the least and last of this space-time world. I am suggesting that each immigrant, legal or illegal, should be viewed through the lens of what motivates them to leave what they know and love to come to what they don't know and where, for the most part, they are not loved. I won't back up from that. People who sat in at lunch counters in the '60's were lawbreakers in Birmingham. To me, sometimes the law is not just...and, if to point out its injustice means to suffer its punishment for breaking it, so be it.

[More Cowbell]

I think, if you look at the thread starter, my intent was not to argue the illegal/legal immigration point, nor to suggest that I am the "only one" who has empathy for the least and last of this space-time world. I am suggesting that each immigrant, legal or illegal, should be viewed through the lens of what motivates them to leave what they know and love to come to what they don't know and where, for the most part, they are not loved. I won't back up from that. People who sat in at lunch counters in the '60's were lawbreakers in Birmingham. To me, sometimes the law is not just...and, if to point out its injustice means to suffer its punishment for breaking it, so be it.

I think, if you read my posts, you will see I never said anything about you claiming to be the only person with empathy. I also never said that it was wrong to do something illegal when you are faced with a desperate situation. What I was did say was that another poster's analogy comparing illegal immigration to stealing was valid, as both activities are unquestionably illegal. Now, does that make them wrong? Depends on your definition of wrong.

I may not agree with every current law in this country, but if I break a law I don't agree with it still makes me a lawbreaker. If you want to debate whether it's acceptable to break a law in certain situations, that's fine. But if you want to change this country's laws, get out and vote to elect people who will fight to change the laws.

[thecavemaster]

I think, if you read my posts, you will see I never said anything about you claiming to be the only person with empathy. I also never said that it was wrong to do something illegal when you are faced with a desperate situation. What I was did say was that another poster's analogy comparing illegal immigration to stealing was valid, as both activities are unquestionably illegal. Now, does that make them wrong? Depends on your definition of wrong.

I may not agree with every current law in this country, but if I break a law I don't agree with it still makes me a lawbreaker. If you want to debate whether it's acceptable to break a law in certain situations, that's fine. But if you want to change this country's laws, get out and vote to elect people who will fight to change the laws.

Your position about voting won't work in certain situations: for example, in the South in the '60's and beyond, a minority cannot elect politicians who must coddle the majority to get elected. We have a constitutional democracy for the very reason that there is more to right and wrong than a simple showing of hands. The Supreme Court is not final because it is right; it is "right" because it is final. Big difference. Laws are not always just, as Oliver Wendell Holmes told a distruntled combatant who said, "But this is a court of justice": "No, this is a court of law."

[More Cowbell]

Your position about voting won't work in certain situations: for example, in the South in the '60's and beyond, a minority cannot elect politicians who must coddle the majority to get elected. We have a constitutional democracy for the very reason that there is more to right and wrong than a simple showing of hands. The Supreme Court is not final because it is right; it is "right" because it is final. Big difference. Laws are not always just, as Oliver Wendell Holmes told a distruntled combatant who said, "But this is a court of justice": "No, this is a court of law."

You still have to understand that everyone has their own definition of what is 'right'. My idea of right and wrong is probably different than yours, and both of us will have differing views than others around us. Since there is no way for everyone to agree on what is right and wrong, a democratic vote and a 'majority rules' system must be employed if you want to have any rules at all. In my opinion, several laws in this country are unjust, but they are still the law. I may not agree with a law that is passed, but I cannot deny that it is the law.

And to complain that voting doesn't work is the easy way out. You may think that your vote doesn't count for much, but if everyone felt the same way and didn't vote, no unjust laws would ever get changed.

[NEXT]

Desperate times calls for desperate measures.

My question for you is why should they not go through the system?

75% of illegals are here for a reason you listed.

That other 25% is here for illegal purposes and are members of MS-13, Latin Kings, Eighteen St, Mexican Mafia, Maravilla, Nortenos, and Sureno

They do not have insurance, thus not able to pay for medical care, which in turn makes doctors and hospitals charge more to cover illegals charge offs.

They then have children here who are US citizens but then become a drain on our welfare and health care systems.

They also do not pay taxes to even make up some of the slack in money they are costing YOU.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Mafia"]
[/URL]

[Beef]

The Supreme Court is not final because it is right; it is "right" because it is final. Big difference. Laws are not always just.

There may be problems with laws today, but you are totally wrong on what you mentioned above. The Supreme Court is right because they interpret the Constitution and see if the laws follow the constitution but the Supreme Court is NOT final. Big Difference. The states have the final say. To overturn the Supreme Court then we must have a Constitutional Amendment. This requires approval by 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress as well as approval of 3/5 of the States. So don't like how the Supreme Court rules? Then get out and support people who will make the changes. The people of our Great country ALWAYS have the final say. We are a country "for the People and by the People".

[thecavemaster]

There may be problems with laws today, but you are totally wrong on what you mentioned above. The Supreme Court is right because they interpret the Constitution and see if the laws follow the constitution but the Supreme Court is NOT final. Big Difference. The states have the final say. To overturn the Supreme Court then we must have a Constitutional Amendment. This requires approval by 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress as well as approval of 3/5 of the States. So don't like how the Supreme Court rules? Then get out and support people who will make the changes. The people of our Great country ALWAYS have the final say. We are a country "for the People and by the People".

Do you think, Beef, the "great people" of the American south would have voted to allow African American students into Alabama or Mississippi or Arkansas without federal troops? Why is Roe v. Wade the rule of the land? The Supreme Court ruled it a constitutional right for a woman to choose, within certain guidelines. Some people believe that is the law because the Supreme Court was not right, but had a final say. Thank you for the civics lesson, which, of course, states the dream of America, which I very much admire. Every once in a while, hope breaks in and justice prevails, but I fear, in the end, monied interests and the industrial/military complex make a sham of the dream of America. I don't believe in majority rule; I believe in constitutional democracy, where the people have a say within certain prescribed limits. We don't agree. We make good arguments. It makes for challenging debate.

[Beef]

Why is Roe v. Wade the rule of the land? The Supreme Court ruled it a constitutional right for a woman to choose, within certain guidelines. Some people believe that is the law because the Supreme Court was not right, but had a final say. Thank you for the civics lesson, which, of course, states the dream of America, which I very much admire. Every once in a while, hope breaks in and justice prevails, but I fear, in the end, monied interests and the industrial/military complex make a sham of the dream of America. I don't believe in majority rule; I believe in constitutional democracy, where the people have a say within certain prescribed limits. We don't agree. We make good arguments. It makes for challenging debate.

Well the people that believe it is the law because the Supreme Court is the final say are wrong, that was my only point. Are Money interests not the American dream? I always thought that the American dream was to become economically successful, isn't that why the illegals come here? (I believe that is your argument). Also, what you believe and don't believe in are one in the same. In a Constitutional Democracy (at least in the USA) the majority does rule. No matter what the majority wants, if working together, they can achieve anything. So your Constitutional Democracy is only a majority rule system. I guess you can argue that you need more than a simple majority in out Constitutional Democracy but non-the-less, the majority has rule.

I don't see how you don't support a majority rule government. Maybe I just need a better explanation of what you would consider a majority rule.

[thecavemaster]

Well the people that believe it is the law because the Supreme Court is the final say are wrong, that was my only point. Are Money interests not the American dream? I always thought that the American dream was to become economically successful, isn't that why the illegals come here? (I believe that is your argument). Also, what you believe and don't believe in are one in the same. In a Constitutional Democracy (at least in the USA) the majority does rule. No matter what the majority wants, if working together, they can achieve anything. So your Constitutional Democracy is only a majority rule system. I guess you can argue that you need more than a simple majority in out Constitutional Democracy but non-the-less, the majority has rule.

I don't see how you don't support a majority rule government. Maybe I just need a better explanation of what you would consider a majority rule.

To come to make a simple living, to have for yourself and those you love some cessation from crushing poverty is a far cry from the monied interests I mean. To make a living is different from to make a killing. To rape the land for filthy lucre, to gorge on luxury while others starve on crumbs, to crave gold and ivory while others crave shelter from heat and cold. Most people survive; a few gorge, like the rich man in the Nazarene's parable. Human beings are frail and full of self interest, unless the minority is protected from the majority, genocides happen; those with power crush those without. To believe that "Americans" somehow are immune from the frailty of the race is to live in a dangerous fantasyland full of peril.

[More Cowbell]

If you want to live in a democratic society, you have to accept the fact that there will always be the ability to make rules by a majority opinion. Does that mean that the majority is always right, and that the laws passed by a majority opinion will always be fair? Not in my book. Just like you had mentioned earlier, racism and sexism were once protected by this country's laws by denying women and minorities the right to vote. But it took a majority of people who believed that these laws were wrong, to fight for what they believed was right.

If you don't make rules by a majority opinion, how do you make them? Allow one person who is very wise to make all the rules? That's a dictatorship. Allow religious groups to do it? That's a theocracy. Just forget about having rules? That's anarchy. Personally, I'll take democracy.

[thecavemaster]

If you want to live in a democratic society, you have to accept the fact that there will always be the ability to make rules by a majority opinion. Does that mean that the majority is always right, and that the laws passed by a majority opinion will always be fair? Not in my book. Just like you had mentioned earlier, racism and sexism were once protected by this country's laws by denying women and minorities the right to vote. But it took a majority of people who believed that these laws were wrong, to fight for what they believed was right.

If you don't make rules by a majority opinion, how do you make them? Allow one person who is very wise to make all the rules? That's a dictatorship. Allow religious groups to do it? That's a theocracy. Just forget about having rules? That's anarchy. Personally, I'll take democracy.

Excellent post...though a constitutional democracy does not enthrone the majority...if you read Jefferson and Madison and Adams, they knew full well the dangers of human nature and how a majority could function. It took the Supreme Court and federal marshals to end Jim Crow and segregation. The funny thing is, that "the kingdom of heaven" (if one believes that) will be a Benevolent Autocracy, with only the Nazarene enthroned. A showing of hands does NOT determine wrong and right and justice and injustice. With that said, Cowbell, I enjoyed reading your post.

[More Cowbell]

Excellent post...though a constitutional democracy does not enthrone the majority...if you read Jefferson and Madison and Adams, they knew full well the dangers of human nature and how a majority could function. It took the Supreme Court and federal marshals to end Jim Crow and segregation. The funny thing is, that "the kingdom of heaven" (if one believes that) will be a Benevolent Autocracy, with only the Nazarene enthroned. A showing of hands does NOT determine wrong and right and justice and injustice. With that said, Cowbell, I enjoyed reading your post.

You are correct that our nation's laws are not made by a simple majority vote by the citizens. The citizens vote for representatives (elected by a majority of votes), who then make decisions on laws (decided by majority votes). But we, as citizens, do not vote directly to pass new laws.

And I never said that majority opinion determines right or wrong. I actually agree with you that a simple vote does not decide what is just or unjust. The majority has been wrong many times before, and will be wrong again in the future. In my opinion, right and wrong are absolutes, and no majority decision can change that.