The debate "Illegal and proud is a stupid statement" was started by
December 3, 2016, 11:27 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 30 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 3 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 28 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
harshita, Yanksxx21, tanya, neveralone, NationalistGuy, Zuhayr, thereal, adriana, allyssa, Rajat and 12 visitors agree.
PoliticsAsUsual, RogueAmerican, historybuff and 4 visitors disagree.
maybe morally. not in that area though I'm not looking for a business college to go to. he wasn't always a criminal while being here though. I think this is a good compromise. let them stay if they want as secondary citizens then after a certain amount of time let them apply for full citizenship
no. I am not superior to a criminal as a blanket statement. we've been over your moral absolutism.
do you believe you are superior to bernie madoff? he is a criminal, yet even if you wanted to replicate his scheme do you believe you have the knowledge and intelligence to pull it off? perhaps you are MORALLY superior to him, but that is not the only measure.
if everyone in the US was a citizen by default, what IS the meaning of citizenship? you say it should have meaning, but your policy will eliminate any significant meaning of the term.
also is your hard line stance an ultimatum or just your ideal? you do realize your stance will never happen in our current situation and all you will be doing is perpetuating a stalemate and will keep these people underground in actually abusive and counterproductive situations.
would you say ur superior to a criminal?
of course the term citizen should have meaning. but if there is a sub class of legal non citizens, then the meaning of citizen is that you are superior to this sub class. and I will never agree that should be allowed.
I never said never. I specifically said they can apply eventually, there are laws that state one has to wait a few years before applying. MAYBE they can get credit for their time here IF they can prove it which may be difficult for illegals unless they have been paying taxes, which could also be a requirement for the time credit, however a blanket giveaway is unnecessary.
It is not me who "removed the word citizen", it is you who is diluting the distinction between citizen and noncitizen which has existed (without claims of abusiveness) in every society, in every nation, at every point of past and present. the term "second class citizen" is also a very real term that you are changing to fit your preference. NOT EVEN LEGAL MIGRANTS ARE GIVEN AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP.
please, address the question. "are you saying the term citizen should be meaningless?"
all you did was remove the word citizen. your post said you want to let people live and work in America but never allow them to have the rights you have.
would it make you happier if I referred to them as second class people? it's the exact same concept, you just seem to be stuck on the word citizen.
are you saying that citizenship should be meaningless?
a second class citizen would be like a lower caste in India. you could be natural born, you could naturalize, you can be a full fledged member of that nation and still not have equal rights. they are citizens with lesser rights, that is not what I am talking about. I don't think you understand what is meant by second class CITIZEN.
do you not get what a second class citizen means? giving people the right to live in your country but withholding other rights is pretty much the defininition of a second class citizen. all you did was call them something else.
I'm not saying seperate class citizen, all citizens should be equal, I'm saying noncitizen legal resident. exactly why should we just start giving everyone citizenship? should we just make everyone on earth a citizen and completely make it meaningless. shouldn't that be something earned?
also your assuming that I can just dictate it and make it so but we live in a democracy with very different opinions. in addition to seeing no reason to hand out citizenships willy nilly, we have to have a middle ground stance that everyone can get behind. your just pushing for stalemate and continuing partisanship.
handing out citizenship would not horrify me, but I don't think it's the smartest move. besides, their children will be citizens, and they can apply eventually.
You are suggesting they get some of the benefits of being a citizen but not all. That would improve their situation, but why not just make them citizens? Why do we need a system of second class citizens?
it's bad compared to us.
how is it bad?
compared to where they come from?
they don't even have to bother with jury duty!
well they get those benefits but they wouldn't get others. tortuous no. bad yeah could be
how is my way punishment? their current situation is punishment.
remember your question of how is it fair for the ones who came legally? well the ones who came legally don't have any of those horrible experiences. working below wage, unable to call police, paranoia. that is punishment. citizenship is not their goal, not for themselves at least. many are seeking a better life for their children.
are you saying life for legal noncitizens is somehow torturous here?
I would actually prefer citizenship. then we wouldn't take advantage of them. though ur way could be for a set amount of time as punishment. I think it would work great like that. though eventually they need to become citizens.
forget citizenship. that isn't what anyone is talking about (except reagan)
we want to make them legal, get them out of the shadows. make it so they can't work below minimum wage, pay taxes, be able to call the police, not live in fear.
citizenship? that's secondary. there is only benefit for us in this action.
there can be more paths. I would keep them here if they want citizenship and under watch till they get it. the ones who don't can get out. the ones that do will have to pay something but again can achieve citizenship
one puts illegals on a path to citizenship, the other deports them, and not even for economic reasons which can change with the times, but for ideological reasons. like you said before, their criminals.
moral issues like that don't change based on situation difference like the world under Reagan and our world. you either extend the ones already here illegally a hand, or a boot.
their not opposites. one piece does not make the puzzle.
not particularly. not interested in sex lives.
and the current movement claims that it models itself around and idiolizes Reagan. so the 2 are supposed to be at least similar, as opposed to completely opposite.
Reagan is spelled wrong. also we are talking about movements not Reagan. but on that subject that is a price to a whole. we could talk about JFK's sex life if u want in a diff. debate
you and the Democrats. the Republicans seem to want to actively strengthen restrictions going against what I believe we both agree is the best choice.
the parties may have changed, but that was much earlier than a few decades ago. the MODERN Republican party which idolizes RAEGAN who I specifically cited as implementing a path to citizenship for illegals.
we can think of others. I'm not a immigrant but I'm all for changing immigration laws.
interesting that u didn't really look at history. the Republican and Democratic parties have both changed their ideas as a group. once I would of agreed with democrats mostly. now I agree with Republicans
why would people already inside America mobilize to change immigration laws? are you talking about the illegals amongst us? yeah, go gather out in the open and declare your undocumented status.... so that you can be easily rounded up and deported....
they are living in the shadows and working in the abusive shadow economy for a reason... cause they are illegal. they can't make a movement.... they can't speak.... it's up to us to choose how we want to treat other people. do you think we are incapable of selfless thought? or even selfish thought as immigrants are great for an economy....
almost every movement in America has been met with violence. it didn't stop them and it shouldn't stop us
lol. interesting factoid of our history and another proof that the Republican hero Reagan would be a RINO by hypocritical modern right wing standards.
in 1986 Reagan passed the IRCA act to give undocumented immigrants a pathway not only to legalization, but even to citizenship.
ah hypocrisy. isn't history awesome?
I'm talking inside America.
and last time a minority group tried to start a movement they were attacked for not being "inclusive" and even labeled terrorists.
we are talking about people outside of the US.... We won't hear or care about their little movement.
I'd make sure u get it changed. make a movement. shout ur voice and never give up.
but if a law is wrong/broken and there is no urge to fix it, then what do you do? resign yourself to your fate? f that.
I'll break it and be proud.
I believe that imprisonment might be a harsh punishment. not really. I'm saying breaking the law us wrong if that law isn't wrong in itself. like it is good to change laws or abolish them if nessasary but not break them.
Neveralone, you do believe in shades of grey when it comes to laws. Do you believe jaywalkers should be imprisoned? Do you believe the sentence for shoplifting should be the same as mass murder? By saying all law breaking is equivalent, you are being disingenuous.
sorry. piaget. not Eric ericson.
or people who think morally. but yeah if u think there's grey it will be harder to debate but not impossible
"grey is only for people wanting to feel better about doing something wrong and not wanting to be punished."
like I said, that is your view, and I feel it is naive. black and white morality is something usually attributed to children before they are able to handle complex logic (not an insult tho you do seem to be rather sensitive to that lol. it's part of Eric Ericson's stages of psychological development).
seeing as that is your view we have nothing else to debate about as we disagree on this fundamental premise.
"crossing a border is the same as rape." before u start jumping in glee I said that only in that they both break the law so sorry u don't get that one.
no that is not what that was about though good try. I mean cold blooded murder since that is agaisnt the law just like being an illegal is.
haha. that is because their is right and their wrong. white and black. grey is only for people wanting to feel better about doing something wrong and not wanting to be punished. even my God believes in only white and black. he even says if u r lukewarm I will spit u out. it's not naive it's not letting bad things happen just because they want to make it sound like their a hero when their a crook.
not anymore though and certainly not in some sections where we bought it. either some of the land was taken by force or money. not saying either was right but both makes it ours.
lol. crossing a border is the same as rape.
going against a bad immigration law is like going against murder.
if we were in a society that considered killing in self defense murder, and someone murdered in defense of his family, then yes I will support them.
your problem is that you see the world in black and white. all laws are equally, and breaking any of them is the same as rape and murder. there is no grey area, there is no nuance. the only thing I can say is that I feel you are very very naive and downright wrong
Also this was English territory. unlike India which was taken over, the people who rebelled were not the natives who were conquered but colonizers who came from that nation and who trace their lineage back to the crown they rebelled against. it was not a foreign power but their own government in every sense.
just because u don't agree with rules does that mean u should break them? what a great defense for murders."yeah I murdered my wife but u can't punish me because I don't agree that murder should be a law." this is ur defense.
a) that was a gov. ruling over them. not a gov. that isn't their own.
b) they fought to get freedom. unlike illegals who just cheat.
would u say it's fair to legal immigrants to let illegals in? that's like giving a cheater and a guy who worked hard the same grade.
so until it's changes they should behave and follow bad rules? even tho people have been calling for change for decades?
then how dare the founding fathers rebell against the rule of the crown instead of quietly waiting for it to change. are you calling the founders rapists for breaking the law? or proud freedom fighters for breaking the law?
on the rapist thing only in part that there both breaking the law.
last I checked didn't he have to go through Congress? if so I don't think a wall will happen but definitely better security.
I believe yes they still have to go the right way and that we have to change parts of it.
he is still planning on making the wall last I heard. it just won't be the "great wall" he promised and parts will be just fence.
and if legislation is changed so that legal immigration becomes next to impossible, do you still feel they have to do it the right way (aka stay in Mexico) or they are the same as rapists? sorry, I disagree.
"I responded to your post about Hillary's "tyranny" and to add to that, a nation cannot exist without border laws when it comes to watching for military attacks, trade agreements, and tax laws."
exactly we have to have border laws. unlike with guns laws or anything else like that.
he isn't going to make the wall so that is redundant and not even about the situation right now. haha that tune must be nice but I haven't heard it. I'm not scared of anyone. if they want to be American I'm glad for them but they need to do it the right way instead of dodging the system.
I already responded to ur previous post.y yeah he made it in a dif. debate so that's done. though nice undercurrent of an insult but it doesn't work like that because I will be glad to debate both but only in the debate about them.
the best way to get a debate back on track to is make an argument that brings it back on track. I responded to your post about Hillary's "tyranny" and to add to that, a nation cannot exist without border laws when it comes to watching for military attacks, trade agreements, and tax laws.
most nations don't have 360 walls and individual pass at will. unless you look to the excellent example of the Berlin wall. the whole narrative of we have to secure our border from migrants and workers is a typical xenophobic play to get insecure and undereducated people to dance to the tune of fear and us vs them.
so if you would like to get the discussion back on track, respond to this and my previous post replying to your argument, until then I guess I'll just keep responding to the person making some form of argument
again dude diff. debate entirely please do it on a diff. debate so we can get on with this one
maybe, but they don't exist now... what's your point? are you trying to bring up the most extreme left wing group to attack all left people? no living or existing left group of any significance gas said any violence, which is more than can be said of the hypocritical right crying fowl over people peacefully exercising their constitutional rights.
dude this has nothing to do about the current debate so of u want to debate about it then make one but for now let's stay on task.
would you like to answer me?
but you literally just linked the Google search result instead of an article. that was the laziest and pretty sad thing I've ever seen. it's literally the same thing as not doing anything at all.
and what was the result of your search? where is the violence? just cause someone changed the word protest to the word riot doesn't mean reality changed. do you suddenly lose the ability to judge reality because someone used a different word? please explain to me how these are riots and not protests.
ever heard of the SLA? If they existed today, they would have threatened Trump's presidency.
for more information-----> https://googleweblight.com/i?u=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army&rqid=8z58IzG2
also the Google search was to show that anyone can simply Google anyones group and find violence.
no I'm actually trying to get this back on track since this debate has gone off the deep end.i don't troll
why are you linking a Google search? that is the laziest attempt I've ever seen. did you even look at the results? where is the violence?
do you not understand the difference between even a violent riot to express frustration and a revolution involving the forceful seizing of power? are you really equating the 2? are you trying to troll?
wow. Our arguments match. we are telling about the same thing :-)
there are always armed people on both left and right. You cant blame the party or the whole right wing for that. There are even left wing terrorists organisations. Do you know that? And most Hillary Clinton supporters are violent .They arent accepting elected Trump. Its against law. I dont mean violent, i mean they want to cause some chaos probably.
just an example of u rioting. also the left threatened to riot if Trump became pres. but this is for a diff. debate
the left has idiots too. Netgear of us claim there doing right. and again a debate for a diff. time
not sure what Google Web light is but here are some links.
also. who cares if they think if she's a tyrannt? the left think Donald Trump will try to be a tyrannt. yet all the left do is peaceful legal protest instead of violent revolution. Its funny how right is still accusing them of not supporting a president elect when they were threatening revolution. smh.
besides, half the reason the right thinks Hillary is a tyranny is because of fake news these uneducated morons believe like gospel. like the moron who ran into a pizza shop in washington state with an assault rifle because according to some right wing sites Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring there lol. these people are idiots and America is all the weaker for having them. especially in large enough numbers to give the election to a strongman making promises as fake as the news his supporters listen to.
u can not run a country without immigration laws. every country has them. unlike with gun laws and ect.
haha idk but were unlikely to do anything. for example when Obama became pres. again there was a group signing to secede. they didn't get enough so don't worry. depends how u look at Hilary. they would say she would make the us a tyranny and in the Constitution we are told to go agaisnt that. (not what I think just giving an example). probably pride because they are overthrowing a corrupt gov. in their mind. what is there to be proud of being an illegal?
I need a backup source. Provide me that in googleweblight. I'm currently running low on data.
because they were outright saying it....
wow. Are you from KGB? How did you predict for sure that the right was going to wage a civil war?
ok... I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything.
the constitution is the law of the land. as is immigration law. does it matter where the law is written in regards to whether one can be proud to break it?
how many right wing groups were preparing for violent civil war if Hillary was elected? would that not be breaking the law? would they feel shame or pride in doing it?
ok guns are in the Constitution but crossing the border isn't. it's a policy type of thing. it's not really a right per say.
whether it's constitutional or not, it's a law. and we can be proud to break stupid ones.
if we were to ban guns tommorow, would you not proudly resist? or would you hand them over like a sheep?
There's a debatable constitutional right to cross the border?
*I was showing
people have been sick and know it and gone over the border. u was just showing that a law is made for a reason.
the gun claim shows how some people would proudly break the law.
how about prohibilition?
constitution is a law, and can be changed via an ammendment. if it were to be made illegal, I know it wont, but don't you think some people would proudly break it?
crossing the border with a disease you probably don't even know about is the same as actively assaulting a person and forcing them to have sex with you?
has this ever even happened?
What!?!?! Slow down guys. The right to bear arms is a constitutional issue. Immigration and naturalization are a legislative issue.
crossing the border with illnesses that we have expunged from here does harm us.
Rape is an attack on another person. Neither crossing the border nor owning a gun are.
wait crossing the border isn't like rape but ur gun claim is? how is it diff.?
I think there needs to be a system where good people can get in but not bad ones. and if u fail to get in u get ur money back.
nope. crossing the border is not the same as rape. lol
and how do you claim it "needs a little tweaking" as opposed a complete overhaul? how are you measuring the amount of needed change?
I'm fine with allowing good people here but being here illegally isn't good we have a process of getting here. one that needs to be tweaked but still one. u shouldn't be happy to break it. u can be proud of who u r but u shouldn't be proud of being illegal. that's like being proud of being a rapist
random far low population nation had equal immigration allowances as a large, land neighbor with economic and historic ties to, and even claim to, parts of our land.
Why did you mention Denmark?
one should always be proud of who they are. I would be proud of breaking a stupid broken law too. I'm sure if the 2nd amendment was officially revoked many gun owners would be proud of breaking the law as well. unjust laws were made to be broken. the black lady who chose to sit in the front of the bus was also proud.
viva illegals. f*** you bad racist laws that made immigration from Mexico impossible by making the land right next to us with regular seasonal work migrants and split families (Texas and new Mexico used to be Mexico completely) have the same immigration limit as denmark. learn history before you preach.
Id laugh at the irony of deportation. Ooh nullification. You never go away.
ok to start I'm not racist. I don't like people doing illegal things that's all. ok now that is out of the way I saw this text apparently from a girl telling Trump that she was illegal but was going to go to the best dentist school around and there is nothing he can do. under that she put illegal and proud. this is stupid no one should be proud of breaking the law.