Do you prefer Border Control or Amnesty for illegals

VanceMack said:

I absolutely agree the laws need to be changed regarding the hiring of illegals. But what you are essentially saying is "your honor...we opened the gates, windows and doors, made a bed for them, offered them a seat at our table, asked them to mow our lawn, clean our house, and watch our children and paid them off the books (and a HELL of a lot less than minimum wage) and let them live with us for 30 years. We just dont think its right and they should have to go back home now."

Click to expand...

I do not know about you or your family but me and my family has never opened any gates,doors and windows for illegals and let illegals live with us for 30 years. Nor has anyone one in my family ever hired an illegal to mow our lawns, clean our house or watch our kids,we do those things ourselves, or if can not do those things ourselves we pay honest companies to do those things. Illegals should be jailed for a certain period of time and then deported, The traitorous rats who hire, house or aid illegals in any way should be thrown in prison, severely fined and be subject to assets seizure and forfeiture up a guilty conviction.

RiverDad said:

This is what I would call treason. You are aligning yourself with the interests of foreigners over those of the US and over the interests of America's net tax-paying class. You want to burden that class with an even greater number of people that they have to subsidize.

Having a redistribution debate which is focused only on the interests of American citizens is one type of debate but to purposely agitate to exacerbate that debate by aligning yourself with the interests of foreigners is really crossing the line.

Click to expand...

You are blurring the lines of legal versus illegal immigration. Nearly all of us are descendants of immigrants, immigrants who came here legally. I'm all for immigration. The more the merrier. We already have about a million legal immigrants a year. We know who they are, we know where they are, we know what they are doing. The problems occur when we have a million and a half illegal immigrants a year. We do not know who they are, we do not know where they are, we do not know what they are doing, but we do know that they are using stolen green card and social security numbers in order to work here, which, among other things, causes no end of grief to the legal residents and citizens to whom those numbers belong.

Please don't confuse legal immigrants with illegal ones.

I would prefer Mexico not being ****ed up. All we're talking about here are solutions to the symptom, not the problem.

To add, i'm generally a proponent of more open borders and easier paths to citizenship (even when immigrants to arrive here legally, they have navigate ****loads of red tape just to get a green card. Some have to wait years, even a decade, just to get a ****ing answer from the bureaucracy.)

DiAnna said:

Nearly all of us are descendants of immigrants, immigrants who came here legally.

Click to expand...

What was right in the past MUST also be right in the present. In the past, husbands used to have total freedom to beat their wives to within an inch of their lives, so if this was the accepted practice in the past, then it stands to reason that it should also remain the accepted practice today. Right?

I'm all for immigration. The more the merrier.

Click to expand...

The San Francisco area has a population of 7,500,000, so what is the ideal population target, 25,000,000 or 50,000,000? How about population density? If a family wants to live in a suburb rather than a dense urban environment, what is the ideal distance and commute time to the urban boundary? 5 miles, 50 miles, 250 miles? In the past there were no watering restrictions placed on homeowners, today such restrictions are common as a means of stretching the water supply. In the future, the glorious high population future, what is the ideal allotment of water that we should allow each person to have per day? 1 gallon? 5 gallons?


The more the merrier you say? Hey China and India, don't stop breeding because pretty soon you're going to be displaced on the list of the world's most populous countries as the US is charging up from behind as we eagerly race to having a billion people here. No one here thinks that crowds are bad. We just love sitting in traffic for 2 hours per day. In fact, we're looking forward to enjoying the Chinese experience of sometimes getting stuck in traffic for days. That must be such a treat and we're so jealous that we don't yet have Chinese levels of population which allows us to give our citizens that special treat. In fact, no one here ever complains about how crowded nature trails and natural parks are - we want more people in the country so that we can have more cars clogging up the national parks, bigger landfills, more rationing, higher housing costs, higher food costs, higher taxes, mmm, mmm, good, so say we all.

RiverDad said:

What was right in the past MUST also be right in the present. In the past, husbands used to have total freedom to beat their wives to within an inch of their lives, so if this was the accepted practice in the past, then it stands to reason that it should also remain the accepted practice today. Right?

Click to expand...

Nice strawman and red herring combo! She made a simple statement of fact, not an appeal to tradition argument.

Being right in the past doesn't automatically make it right now, but it also doesn't make it wrong now, either.

And appeal to fear fallacies still remain fallacies, in case you were wondering.

jamesrage said:

I do not know about you or your family but me and my family has never opened any gates,doors and windows for illegals and let illegals live with us for 30 years. Nor has anyone one in my family ever hired an illegal to mow our lawns, clean our house or watch our kids,we do those things ourselves, or if can not do those things ourselves we pay honest companies to do those things. Illegals should be jailed for a certain period of time and then deported, The traitorous rats who hire, house or aid illegals in any way should be thrown in prison, severely fined and be subject to assets seizure and forfeiture up a guilty conviction.

Click to expand...

I dont think you have...but can you really not see that as a country that is precisely what we have done?

Tucker Case said:

Nice strawman and red herring combo! She made a simple statement of fact, not an appeal to tradition argument.

Being right in the past doesn't automatically make it right now, but it also doesn't make it wrong now, either.

And appeal to fear fallacies still remain fallacies, in case you were wondering.

Click to expand...

Bzzt. Wrong again. If you're going to criticize me on issues of logic then you're going to have to up your game.

Here is what she wrote:

Nearly all of us are descendants of immigrants, immigrants who came here legally. I'm all for immigration. The more the merrier.​

Her argument makes a statement of fact and solely on the basis of that statement she arrives at her conclusion. I merely duplicated her thought process to highlight how ridiculous it was.

What you class as appeal to fear is no such thing. Her conclusion is "the more the merrier." I'm simply accepting her at her word. The US with 308,000,000 needs a whole lot more people in order to make it a merrier place. OK then, what are the consequences which follow from both increased population density and increased population. She concludes that more people makes things merrier.

lpast said:

Which do you favor....Americans by a 2-1 margin prefer border control over Amnesty

Voters Put Border Control Ahead of Amnesty by 2-1 Margin - Rasmussen Reports™

Click to expand...

Border control and amnesty for illegal aliens are not mutually exclusive things.

I want border control and deportation for terrorists and criminals but I want amnesty for those who abide the rest of our laws, are non-violent, and study to provide and contribute to our economy.

VanceMack said:

I dont think you have...but can you really not see that as a country that is precisely what we have done?

Click to expand...

The country as a whole has not done.Most businesses are honest enough to not hire illegals and most people are honest enough to not hire illegals. It is a handful of traitors that hire illegals and traitorous scum in office who try to circumvent the laws already in place to encourage illegal immigration.

jamesrage said:

The country as a whole has not done.Most businesses are honest enough to not hire illegals and most people are honest enough to not hire illegals. It is a handful of traitors that hire illegals and traitorous scum in office who try to circumvent the laws already in place to encourage illegal immigration.

Click to expand...

James...dude...Im on youre side on this issue. Really. I dont propose we make illegals citizen out of the typical mindless bleeding heart feel good "we have to for the sake of the children" type mindset. Your idea is simply not based in reality and when an argument isnt based in reality it is worthless. Politicians will not enact legislation or insist that existing legislation get enforced. It would not be politically expedient and politicians..both sides...are worried about votes and reelection. Strike one. Start pushing those buttons and you have massive lawsuits and in no time you have a case before the 9th cirtcuit court of appeals halting all deportation. Strike two. You create a racial divide in a nation with avery significant hispanic population. Strike three...next batter. You spend billions and billions that you dont have. Strike one. You completely abandon the responsibility the country bears for creating this situation. Strike two. You take away employment opportunities for people already working their ass off and living under the radar...and baby...they aint going home. You create an even GREATER potential for gang involvement, crime, etc. Strike three...next batter...we got a no hitter going here...

Amnesty in and of itself isnt a working solution. Neither is building a fence. Without working together you have done nothing to change the environment that created the situation. And like it or not...the US is at least partially responsible for the mess we are in.

RiverDad said:

Bzzt. Wrong again. If you're going to criticize me on issues of logic then you're going to have to up your game.

Here is what she wrote:

Nearly all of us are descendants of immigrants, immigrants who came here legally. I'm all for immigration. The more the merrier.​

Her argument makes a statement of fact and solely on the basis of that statement she arrives at her conclusion. I merely duplicated her thought process to highlight how ridiculous it was.

What you class as appeal to fear is no such thing. Her conclusion is "the more the merrier." I'm simply accepting her at her word. The US with 308,000,000 needs a whole lot more people in order to make it a merrier place. OK then, what are the consequences which follow from both increased population density and increased population. She concludes that more people makes things merrier.

Click to expand...

When they are here legally. Which was made crystal clear in the part of my post you ignored. I've concluded that you make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and want all those damned foreigners out of your pure American country! How's that working for you? :lol:

RiverDad said:

Bzzt. Wrong again. If you're going to criticize me on issues of logic then you're going to have to up your game.

Here is what she wrote:

Nearly all of us are descendants of immigrants, immigrants who came here legally. I'm all for immigration. The more the merrier.​

Her argument makes a statement of fact and solely on the basis of that statement she arrives at her conclusion. I merely duplicated her thought process to highlight how ridiculous it was.

What you class as appeal to fear is no such thing. Her conclusion is "the more the merrier." I'm simply accepting her at her word. The US with 308,000,000 needs a whole lot more people in order to make it a merrier place. OK then, what are the consequences which follow from both increased population density and increased population. She concludes that more people makes things merrier.

Click to expand...

False. The comment was nothing more than a statement of fact (that most people are currently here today are only here because of legal immigration). It was designed to point out what se perceived of as the flaw in your previous statement which she felt blurred the line between legal and illegal immigration. A proper response to that would have been "I do blur the line because I consider both to be problematic for x, y, z reasons" or " I make x, y, and z distinctions between legal and illegal immigration."

After she made that comment she shared her opinion on legal immigration (that she was all for it), and her argument for that was "the more the merrier".

If you wished to go after her argument, then you should have focused on how a thought-terminating cliche is not a real argument (Hell, simply quoting the cliche and saying "really? can you prove that?").

Instead of going after the fallacy that she was guilty of, you tried to present the idea that increased population would certainly lead to overpopulation, which is an appeal to fear.

P.S. I bring my A game every time, but I can't help it if some of my opponents aren't at the same competitive level as me and are unable to keep up with me.

P.P.S. In order to be "wrong again" I have actually have been wrong before.

VanceMack said:

James...dude...Im on youre side on this issue. Really. I dont propose we make illegals citizen out of the typical mindless bleeding heart feel good "we have to for the sake of the children" type mindset. Your idea is simply not based in reality and when an argument isnt based in reality it is worthless. Politicians will not enact legislation or insist that existing legislation get enforced. It would not be politically expedient and politicians..both sides...are worried about votes and reelection. Strike one. Start pushing those buttons and you have massive lawsuits and in no time you have a case before the 9th cirtcuit court of appeals halting all deportation. Strike two. You create a racial divide in a nation with avery significant hispanic population. Strike three...next batter. You spend billions and billions that you dont have. Strike one. You completely abandon the responsibility the country bears for creating this situation. Strike two. You take away employment opportunities for people already working their ass off and living under the radar...and baby...they aint going home. You create an even GREATER potential for gang involvement, crime, etc. Strike three...next batter...we got a no hitter going here...

Amnesty in and of itself isnt a working solution. Neither is building a fence. Without working together you have done nothing to change the environment that created the situation. And like it or not...the US is at least partially responsible for the mess we are in.

Click to expand...

States can simply do what Oklahoma and Arizona have done,eventually states like California will be forced to join because its one thing when those 12-20 million illegals are spread out across the country and its another thing when they are all in your state because they fled states that are hostile to them. Not all states have to deal with the 9th circuit court of appeals.

jamesrage said:

States can simply do what Oklahoma and Arizona have done,eventually states like California will be forced to join because its one thing when those 12-20 million illegals are spread out across the country and its another thing when they are all in your state because they fled states that are hostile to them. Not all states have to deal with the 9th circuit court of appeals.

Click to expand...

Dont quote me on this...Im not a lawyer...but thats actually not true. All states DO have to deal with the 9th...its a federal court and a case brought before the 9th is binding. If Im not mistaken, which I may be. But I dont think I am.

jamesrage said:

States can simply do what Oklahoma and Arizona have done,eventually states like California will be forced to join because its one thing when those 12-20 million illegals are spread out across the country and its another thing when they are all in your state because they fled states that are hostile to them. Not all states have to deal with the 9th circuit court of appeals.

Click to expand...

Doesn't California have the most illegal immigrants, though? Arizona and Oklahoma have barely any compared to them.

VanceMack said:

Dont quote me on this...Im not a lawyer...but thats actually not true. All states DO have to deal with the 9th...its a federal court and a case brought before the 9th is binding. If Im not mistaken, which I may be. But I dont think I am.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that judicial decisions are not law (per se), but judicial precedence acts as a basis for judicial decision-making in most cases.

Technically, though, the 9th only has jurisdiction over the district courts on the West Coast, Alaska, and Pacific. I'm not sure if the rulings of the 9th apply to other states outside their jurisdiction, but even if they do, those states can take it to SCOTUS, which has appellate jurisdiction over the entire country.

DiAnna said:

When they are here legally. Which was made crystal clear in the part of my post you ignored. I've concluded that you make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and want all those damned foreigners out of your pure American country! How's that working for you? :lol:

Click to expand...

When I quoted you in my first response to your comment, this is the quote I selected: "Nearly all of us are descendants of immigrants, immigrants who came here legally." Your reference to legal immigration is right there. Not one thing I wrote in criticism is affected by whether the immigrant is legal or not. Do you really imagine that it is only illegal immigrants who increase the nation's population? Don't legal immigrants increase the nation's population? Look, I took your argument as you presented it. If the US population grows from 300 million to 600 million via births and legal immigration, and only legal immigration, which of the problems that I laid out are avoided by excluding illegal immigrants?

If the Bay area grows from a population of 7.5 million to 45 million via lots and lots of legal immigrants, you know, the more the merrier as you said, and water rationing has to be expanded and commute times are lengthened and taxes have to be raised to pay for more infrastructure and suburbs have to be built hundreds of miles away from the city center and population density has to be increased in the urban areas, these are all unqualified good things to you?

Tucker Case said:

If you wished to go after her argument, then you should have focused on how a thought-terminating cliche is not a real argument (Hell, simply quoting the cliche and saying "really? can you prove that?").

Click to expand...

You're advancing a normative critique. That type of critique doesn't have anything to add to the issue of your criticism of my comment which you claimed was nothing more than a red herring and a strawman.

I didn't wish to diagnose what was wrong with her argument, I wished to duplicate the structure of her argument. The clue to this is that I did duplicate the structure of her argument. Can I be more obvious about what I wished to do?

you tried to present the idea that increased population would certainly lead to overpopulation, which is an appeal to fear.

Click to expand...

When you are filling a glass from a pitcher of water and you tell all around you that you don't believe that there are limits on how much water the glass can hold, you know, saying something like "the more the merrier" then it is not an appeal to fear to point out that when the glass overflows the water will spill onto the floor.

Increasing population has natural consequences on resource scarcity and resource allocation.

Look, just admit that you shot from the hip with your criticisms, that they weren't well formulated and that you'd like to stop digging the hole you're in any deeper.

RiverDad said:

If the Bay area grows from a population of 7.5 million to 45 million via lots and lots of legal immigrants, you know, the more the merrier as you said, and water rationing has to be expanded and commute times are lengthened and taxes have to be raised to pay for more infrastructure and suburbs have to be built hundreds of miles away from the city center and population density has to be increased in the urban areas, these are all unqualified good things to you?

Click to expand...

Certainly those aren't the positive parts of population density, but there obviously are major positives too. There is a reason that the most expensive real estate in the country, by orders of magnitude, is in the most densely populated places. It also means more theaters, more stores within walking distance of your house, more people that are into whatever it is you're into nearby, higher wages, rising property values, more companies starting, more innovation, etc.

Now, overpopulation is a real problem- it creates strains on the planet that are tough to sustain. But that equation works out the same regardless of which country the people are in. As long as they're on earth, they're going to have that impact.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean that we should just open up the borders or whatever. Like everything else in life, it is about finding the right balance where the disadvantages and advantages balance out optimally.

RiverDad said:

When I quoted you in my first response to your comment, this is the quote I selected: "Nearly all of us are descendants of immigrants, immigrants who came here legally." Your reference to legal immigration is right there.

Click to expand...

Yes, and when you understand why she referenced legal immigration there you will understand why your response was a strawman (hint: the reason for that reference lies in the sentence which preceded it. There is an assumption that can be exploited there, and I've actually given you a specific sentence to exploit it with already, but instead you focus on the population growth red herring and appeal to fear argument*).



* two hints for the price of one: you made an assumption regarding the meaning of "more" that was unfounded (hence your appeal to fear argument). In the context of that statement, the argument could easily be that more was specifically referencing legal immigrants. As in the more legal immigrants the merrier. It is certainly possible to have that situation without a population explosion that your appeal to fear focuses on.

RiverDad said:

... I wished to duplicate the structure of her argument.

Click to expand...

Then you failed miserably at it. Her argument was a thought terminating cliche. In order to duplicate that, you would have had to respond with another thought terminating cliche. "two's company, three's a crowd" would have done this adequately. What you posited was simply a miserable failure if that was your intention.

teamosil said:

Certainly those aren't the positive parts of population density, but there obviously are major positives too. There is a reason that the most expensive real estate in the country, by orders of magnitude, is in the most densely populated places. It also means more theaters, more stores within walking distance of your house, more people that are into whatever it is you're into nearby, higher wages, rising property values, more companies starting, more innovation, etc.

Click to expand...

High population density means more innovation and more companies starting? Well, I take it that you've never been to hellholes like Karachi or Lagos, which are near the top of cities as ranked by population density compared to San Francisco which is down at #104. Those high wage meccas, like Karachi and Lagos must be drawing lots of folks like you who are in search of all these great things that increased population density brings. So when are you packing to find more enrichment in the cultural and economic super cities of Karachi and Lagos? You should really leave dowdy ol' San Francisco behind, what with it being only #104 on the list of population dense cities.

Now, overpopulation is a real problem- it creates strains on the planet that are tough to sustain. But that equation works out the same regardless of which country the people are in. As long as they're on earth, they're going to have that impact.

Click to expand...

Do you even stop to take a gulp from all of the liberal propaganda that is firehosed down your throat? A Western lifestyle has far more environmental impact than a non-Western lifestyle. It most assuredly matters where the people live and how they live.

RiverDad said:

...saying something like "the more the merrier" then it is not an appeal to fear to point out that when the glass overflows the water will spill onto the floor.

Click to expand...

See post #70 for an explanation of your flawed assumption regarding the cliche.

RiverDad said:

High population density means more innovation and more companies starting? Well, I take it that you've never been to hellholes like Karachi or Lagos, which are near the top of cities as ranked by population density compared to San Francisco which is down at #104. Those high wage meccas, like Karachi and Lagos must be drawing lots of folks like you who are in search of all these great things that increased population density brings. So when are you packing to find more enrichment in the cultural and economic super cities of Karachi and Lagos? You should really leave dowdy ol' San Francisco behind, what with it being only #104 on the list of population dense cities.

Click to expand...

You understand that there are more factors in determining wages than just population density, right? Compare wages, for example, between Lagos and rural Nigeria...

RiverDad said:

Do you even stop to take a gulp from all of the liberal propaganda that is firehosed down your throat? A Western lifestyle has far more environmental impact than a non-Western lifestyle. It most assuredly matters where the people live and how they live.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you see ignoring the higher resource utilization of first world countries as a liberal thing. Goofball.

That said, you do raise a fair point. How people live definitely matters, but that doesn't really change all that much when somebody comes to the US. They don't like sudden get handed SUVs and 5 bedroom air conditioned houses as they cross the border. Also, people in the first world have far fewer children, so that potentially would offset the increased consumption.

Horrible question, because one doesn't preclude the other.

My option would be secure the border. Its what I feel like we absolutely need to do first nad foremost.

I'm fine with discussing forms of "amnesty" at some point after that, but no before. But they're not muturally exclusive.