Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 128

Thread: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

  1. #111
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This whole thing is really simple, and shows the sad state of Politics in this country.

    Democrats forced a procedural change to require a 2/3rds vote, in hopes of either passing this and being able to get the publicity while using the Republican's illegal arguments against them in November or it not passing and being able to paint the Republicans as uncaring about 9/11 individuals and the "party of no".

    Republicans wanted to add an amendment to keep funding of this from going to illegal immigration because its a big issue with their base and would help for 2010 and if it was shot down would allow them to paint democrats as caring more for illegals than 9/11 rescurers.

    In both cases the political posturing is blatantly evident and frankly disgusting. If this was ONLY about passing legislation to help the 9/11 survivors Democrats wouldn't have done the 2/3rds gimmick in the first place.

    Neither side is more or less guilty in this. Could the Republicans had just gone along and given the votes despite their reservations about illegals? Absolutely. But that only mattered because Democrats choose to force a 2/3rds vote specifically to avoid the illegals. Had they not done that it would've also passed. Democrats played political games, at the cost of 9/11 first responders. Then Republicans played political games, at the cost of 9/11 first responders. Its pathetic for indivduals on either side to narrowly focus their hypocritical rage, as all it shows is that they are no different then those politicians that were involved in this...that they don't give a damn about the 9/11 first responders, caring only for what political points they can score off this.
    Through this link, I've changed my opinion on this matter. I think I'll call bull**** on Republicans here -- and just maybe on the whole bill, frankly. Think about it. Why add an amendment to the bill excluding illegals from receiving any compensation? If an illegal immigrant was brave enough to go wade into that mess and be injured, or contract a serious lung disorder, why shouldn't he receive benefits? He should be deported, IMO, but why shouldn't he be protected the same way a citizen is?

    Or can we use and abuse illegals at will? If one agrees with THAT, then I could make an argument, that we should ONLY have used illegals so we woudn't have to pay them anything at all. Or exempt them from OSHA safety standards. Or any other protection that is just basic human rights. Maybe we should have them clean out our nuclear reactor cores. Call an illegal when we have to rescue property from a burning building maybe?

    The bill itself is another story. As I've said earlier, it's a Yankee Doodle Bill. I'd be very interested to know just how much the government has already allocated to this program. I think we'd all be floored. Transparency? Where? Oh, it's so transparent, we can't see it.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #112
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Its similar to stolen property in my mind Maggie.

    If someone steals an item, and then gives that item to a kid that was really really dreaming to have that item, guess what? The kid would have to give the item back and the guy that stole it would be punished. Even though he did it for "kind" reasons, even though it was a benevolent act in the end by trying to give it to someone who really wanted it, ultimately it came about because of illegal activity.

    I applaud any illegal alien that did help out on that day. As a human, I feel for them. That doesn't change their legal status though, and that doesn't change the fact they should not be legally entitled to money in part gained through taxing the income of citizens.

    I would be all for a bill that perhaps gave illegal immigrants who can provide legitimate proof that they helped as first responders on that day priority status when applying for citizenship or something of the sort. But their heroism occured in the process of committing a crime, and they should not be paid for that.

  3. #113
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Its similar to stolen property in my mind Maggie.

    If someone steals an item, and then gives that item to a kid that was really really dreaming to have that item, guess what? The kid would have to give the item back and the guy that stole it would be punished. Even though he did it for "kind" reasons, even though it was a benevolent act in the end by trying to give it to someone who really wanted it, ultimately it came about because of illegal activity.

    I applaud any illegal alien that did help out on that day. As a human, I feel for them. That doesn't change their legal status though, and that doesn't change the fact they should not be legally entitled to money in part gained through taxing the income of citizens.

    I would be all for a bill that perhaps gave illegal immigrants who can provide legitimate proof that they helped as first responders on that day priority status when applying for citizenship or something of the sort. But their heroism occured in the process of committing a crime, and they should not be paid for that.
    I love your last paragraph. And, honestly? That could have been included in that legislation and I'd have had absolutely no problem with it.

    Let me draw another analogy. An illegal immigrant is purposely run down by a carload of Skinheads. Should we not apply the law to them and charge them with murder because the guy was here illegally? Kind of ridiculous analogy, but I don't see much difference in the principle. With the stance you're taking, it would then seem we should use illegals for hazardous duty of ANY kind. I think we have to apply everybody's equal in the eyes of the law.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #114
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I love your last paragraph. And, honestly? That could have been included in that legislation and I'd have had absolutely no problem with it.
    Hell, if the Republicans added an amendment that barred illegal immigrants, whose to say that Democrats couldn't have added exactly what I said above?

    Let me draw another analogy. An illegal immigrant is purposely run down by a carload of Skinheads. Should we not apply the law to them and charge them with murder because the guy was here illegally? Kind of ridiculous analogy, but I don't see much difference in the principle. With the stance you're taking, it would then seem we should use illegals for hazardous duty of ANY kind. I think we have to apply everybody's equal in the eyes of the law.
    But its not a good analogy. In this case the individuals killed someone. It doesn't matter that they killed someone who was in the act of an illegal thing.

    For example....if someone steals something, and is running from the scene, can you run that person down in your car? No. Yet that person is performing an criminal act while you're in the process of running the person down. Similarly, while its criminal to be here illegally, its the actions by the people running him down that matter not the criminal nature of the person that is ran down.

    We can not "use" Illegals for hazardous things. This is where your argument falls apart. If they're illegal, and the government knows they're illegal, then they shouldn't legally be USING them they should be either deporting them or punishing them. "Punishing" them by forcing them to go into emergency zones would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. What you're suggesting we should do does not work in anything but an extremely narrowly tailored hypothetical abscent of any kind of laws, and thus has little to no real baring on reality.

    The issue with the notion of "applying the laws equally" is that its, well, bull. EVERY law discriminates in some way. This law in and of itself discriminates. It discriminates between 9/11 first responders and none 9/11 first responders. Its saying people that helped out with the crisis in 9/11 get something, but someone who helped out in say a burning building down in Podunk Virginia doesn't. That's not "applying the law" equally. But that's also simply normal for how things work. They're tailored for specific purposes or needs. "9/11 first responders who are citizens" isn't any more unequal than "9/11 first responders only, not other disaster first responders".

  5. #115
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Hell, if the Republicans added an amendment that barred illegal immigrants, whose to say that Democrats couldn't have added exactly what I said above?
    EGZAKLY!!

    But its not a good analogy. In this case the individuals killed someone. It doesn't matter that they killed someone who was in the act of an illegal thing.

    For example....if someone steals something, and is running from the scene, can you run that person down in your car? No. Yet that person is performing an criminal act while you're in the process of running the person down. Similarly, while its criminal to be here illegally, its the actions by the people running him down that matter not the criminal nature of the person that is ran down.

    We can not "use" Illegals for hazardous things. This is where your argument falls apart. If they're illegal, and the government knows they're illegal, then they shouldn't legally be USING them they should be either deporting them or punishing them. "Punishing" them by forcing them to go into emergency zones would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. What you're suggesting we should do does not work in anything but an extremely narrowly tailored hypothetical abscent of any kind of laws, and thus has little to no real baring on reality. I would disagree that my argument falls apart. It's quite well known that processing plants use illegals. It's also well known that's very dangerous work. Shall we bar them from OSHA standards? Frankly, my opinion is we already do de facto. They would no doubt be afraid to come forward to make a legitimate claim. Either the law applies to everybody or it doesn't. I don't think we can write laws that say, for instance, "If you've committed a crime and not been convicted, then this law/protection doesn't apply to you.

    The issue with the notion of "applying the laws equally" is that its, well, bull. EVERY law discriminates in some way. This law in and of itself discriminates. It discriminates between 9/11 first responders and none 9/11 first responders. Its saying people that helped out with the crisis in 9/11 get something, but someone who helped out in say a burning building down in Podunk Virginia doesn't. That's not "applying the law" equally. But that's also simply normal for how things work. They're tailored for specific purposes or needs. "9/11 first responders who are citizens" isn't any more unequal than "9/11 first responders only, not other disaster first responders".
    I don't agree with your example. This law is specifically designed to help those who either responded or helped clean up 9/11. It would be discriminatory to say, "Well, yeah, you helped; but you weren't here legally, so tough ****. Doesn't apply to you.
    ------------------------------
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  6. #116
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Gah, very difficult to quote you like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I would disagree that my argument falls apart. It's quite well known that processing plants use illegals. It's also well known that's very dangerous work. Shall we bar them from OSHA standards? Frankly, my opinion is we already do de facto. They would no doubt be afraid to come forward to make a legitimate claim. Either the law applies to everybody or it doesn't. I don't think we can write laws that say, for instance, "If you've committed a crime and not been convicted, then this law/protection doesn't apply to you.
    However working in processing plants isn't the government using them, its private business. Emergency situations, dangerous situations, etc that the government deals with is what's being talked about in this bill. "We" you keep speaking of seems to be society, but society has no control over what private businesses do, they simply have (some, theoritical) control over the government so it is what I'm refernecing.

    OSHA standards are irrelevant to illegal immigrants in my mind. Unless you're employing 100% illegal immigrants, if you're not meeting OSHA standards you're going to get tagged for it based on your legal workers anyways. Then, on top of that, you should get tagged for having illegal workers. Sure, you could say "well my hypothetical is that they're employing 100% illegal immigrants". Sure, then OSHA may not matter...but then again, they're going to get strung up for hiring that many illegal immigrants and their ENTIRE employee base would vanish as they're deported or arrested.

    They SHOULD be afraid to come forward to get an entitlement...they're ILLEGAL. They shouldn't be here. They're breaking the law. They should be deported.

    You are picking and choosing discrimination and which ones you're fine with. You go "Well, yeah, you helped; but you weren't here legally, so tough ****. Doesn't apply to you.". How would that be any different than someone who helped with a building collapse elsewhere? How would that not be going "Well, yeah, you helped people in a collapsed building; but you weren't in new York for 9/11, so tough ****. Doesn't apply to you."

    You're picking and choosing WHO to apply this too. You're narrowly tailoring it only to "those that responded or helped clean up 9/11". You do that instead of going "Those that responded or helped clean up any disaster". That's no different than tailoring it to only legal 9/11 helpers. Its still making a distinction between two sets of people.

    If you steal a persons identity, and that person gets a tax return, should you be free to get that tax return since you're ability to obtain it is due to illegal activity? No. The only reason the illegals would be able to be in the position to gain this benefit is because they were performing a criminal action, being here illegally. If they weren't committing that crime they'd not be elligible for this. You don't get to gain the benefits of something you did illegally.

  7. #117
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Yeah, I wish I knew an easy way to copy a post, then dissect it. I haven't seen anyone else do it my way, so I know it must be possible. But it's so arduous the way I do it....putting in the {quote} {/quote} every so often and reformatting. Maybe I'm not doing it right.

    I think rather than focussing on the legislation itself being discriminatory in a way that makes it wrong (which I don't agree with, but is a separate issue), I'm arguing that illegal immigrants are entitled to the same protections under the law that anyone else is. Singling out a "status" that it doesn't apply to, at least in THIS instance, would not be right, IMO. If you can't agree on the level of "legality," perhaps you can agree on a humanitarian level.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #118
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Yeah, I wish I knew an easy way to copy a post, then dissect it. I haven't seen anyone else do it my way, so I know it must be possible. But it's so arduous the way I do it....putting in the {quote} {/quote} every so often and reformatting. Maybe I'm not doing it right.
    Nope, that's pretty much it. Adding in the [ quote ] and [ /quote ].

    I think rather than focussing on the legislation itself being discriminatory in a way that makes it wrong (which I don't agree with, but is a separate issue), I'm arguing that illegal immigrants are entitled to the same protections under the law that anyone else is. Singling out a "status" that it doesn't apply to, at least in THIS instance, would not be right, IMO. If you can't agree on the level of "legality," perhaps you can agree on a humanitarian level.
    Their entitled to protections under the law.

    This isn't a protection under the law. This is a NEW law, and as a NEW law it can be shaped however. IE if there was already a law on the books that said "ANYONE that helped out in the aftermath of 9/11 gets health care" then so be it. But its not law and there's nothing that says they're ENTITLED to have a law passed that benefits them.

    No one has a RIGHT to this health care. No one has a RIGHT to get something for helping out with 9/11. This is something that the government is doing, and I think its a good thing, but no one is entitled to it. And I have no issue with denying those benefits to individuals who were only able to do acts on that day due to their flagrent disregards for our laws.

    As I said, laws are written every single day in discriminatory ways. This law in and of itself is written in a discriminatory way. The only reason you're upset about it is it'd be discriminating in a way you don't like if this had happened.

    I can't agree on a humanatarian level. Not on this. Citizens of the country shouldn't have to pay for health care for individuals who only had the oppertunity they had because they were BREAKING THE LAW, not to mention the fact that they shouldn't be getting health care money because if we know where they are to give them Health Insurance we should be enforcing the law and deporting them.

  9. #119
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Nope, that's pretty much it. Adding in the [ quote ] and [ /quote ].



    Their entitled to protections under the law.

    This isn't a protection under the law. This is a NEW law, and as a NEW law it can be shaped however. IE if there was already a law on the books that said "ANYONE that helped out in the aftermath of 9/11 gets health care" then so be it. But its not law and there's nothing that says they're ENTITLED to have a law passed that benefits them.

    No one has a RIGHT to this health care. No one has a RIGHT to get something for helping out with 9/11. This is something that the government is doing, and I think its a good thing, but no one is entitled to it. And I have no issue with denying those benefits to individuals who were only able to do acts on that day due to their flagrent disregards for our laws.

    As I said, laws are written every single day in discriminatory ways. This law in and of itself is written in a discriminatory way. The only reason you're upset about it is it'd be discriminating in a way you don't like if this had happened.

    I can't agree on a humanatarian level. Not on this. Citizens of the country shouldn't have to pay for health care for individuals who only had the oppertunity they had because they were BREAKING THE LAW, not to mention the fact that they shouldn't be getting health care money because if we know where they are to give them Health Insurance we should be enforcing the law and deporting them.
    Well stated, Zyphlin. I don't agree with you, but you've made your point.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  10. #120
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Rep. Weiner Wigs Out on Republicans

    Thanks, and I get yours too.

    If I had to break it down JUST to emotion, I'd agree with you. But to me, it goes beyond simple emotion and the "fairness" of giving it to them infringes of "fairness" on others. I don't necessarily think its "wrong" if they get it, and it alone probably wouldn't stop me from voting in favor of something like this...but I can understand on principle disagreeing with this.

    Now, with that said, I think most of those in congress did what they did not off of principle but off of political strategy

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •