Rapid Quiz for Sir Evil

IHateGovernment said:
Let me give this example.

A woman sneaks over to the US from China in a container. She has a child two years after coming over. The child goes to our schools, makes friends here and speaks english perfectly while they don't speak a word of Mandarin. The mother cares for her child alone and quite well. The child performs well in school and shows great promise.

13 years after her arrival she is discovered to be an illegal and is subject to deportation. The 11 year old child is faced with going to a land she knows nothing about and doesn't speak the language. Not to mention that it is an oppressive country that would be totally alien to her American freedom sensibilities. Or she can live in a foster home with parents who may or may not love her or even care for her very well. To the child her mother is the only one who could love her and America is the only land that could have her.

Why do this to an innocent child just because her mother made a mistake. I think this bears weight in consideration.
Click to expand...
First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!
 
LadyT said:
Yes. They would be a citizen and enitled to stay. Or they can go back with their parents to their home country.
Click to expand...

You'd make (for example) a ten year old US citizen, choose between her parents, and her country?
 
Cypress said:
You'd make (for example) a ten year old US citizen, choose between her parents, and her country?
Click to expand...
Her parents would have made her make that choice... Why is it you want to make me responsible for the choices of her parents?
 
Cypress said:
OK. I can't see the world in a black and white way. I believe our laws require flexibiliy.

To me, if an illegal immigrant served in the marines, got a silver star, and got his leg blown off serving in iraq, I'd give that mofo citizenship.

Under your black and white version of the law, he would be deported.
Click to expand...

All Icould focus in on that anecdote was the fact that our military would be letting people in without doing proper background checks and if that's the case, we've got bigger problems.
 
First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!

Well if amnesty is available I might feel differently. However I oppose general amnesty. Perhaps is she sought a special amnesty because of her situation I might be open to that.

Life is obviously not fair and some are born into better families than others. However as a society we have always given children special consideration. Why do we have universal education. Why not have all schooling be directly paid for. Because as a society we have concluded that a parents poverty and inability to afford school should not be the reason a child is denied an education. Why if a woman is a crackhead are her children taken from her. This is because we see it as a childs right to have at least some minimum level of care from a parent.

Do I suggest the state protect children completely from parent's bad decisions. Definitely not for we could never effectively do so or afford to do so. However I also wouldn't say the state has no responsibility to look out for the rights of children.

This is especially so because the state denies certain rights to children that are extended to adults and rightfully so. However because of this it also becomes the responsibility of the state to protect children to some degree.

You can be for full protection, no protection or some protection. Obviously we are both for some protection. So the demarcation where the state should intervene is a matter of taste between us not a fundamental principal.
 
Cypress said:
You'd make (for example) a ten year old US citizen, choose between her parents, and her country?
Click to expand...

It would be up to her parents to decide. I'm saying that option would be available.
 
Damocles said:
First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!
Click to expand...
Oh, cut the drama. It's not black and white, as per usual.

The cited example is both practical -- she quite likely wouldn't have been granted amnesty, BTW -- and fairly convincing. The social need -- read: emotional desire on the part of many -- to make the parents suffer the consequences of their choices is outweighed, in this instance, by what would be a clear cut wrong. Deporting that hypothetical child would be wrong.

Yet we do this sort of nonsense every day.
 
Why are you guys acting like going back to their home country would be some kind of death sentence (if it was, then of course the parents and child should stay)? People move across the globe all the time. The only gray area in my mind would be if their lives would be in danger for going back or if the country is in the middle of a war.
 
IHateGovernment said:
First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!

Well if amnesty is available I might feel differently. However I oppose general amnesty. Perhaps is she sought a special amnesty because of her situation I might be open to that.

Life is obviously not fair and some are born into better families than others. However as a society we have always given children special consideration. Why do we have universal education. Why not have all schooling be directly paid for. Because as a society we have concluded that a parents poverty and inability to afford school should not be the reason a child is denied an education. Why if a woman is a crackhead are her children taken from her. This is because we see it as a childs right to have at least some minimum level of care from a parent.

Do I suggest the state protect children completely from parent's bad decisions. Definitely not for we could never effectively do so or afford to do so. However I also wouldn't say the state has no responsibility to look out for the rights of children.

This is especially so because the state denies certain rights to children that are extended to adults and rightfully so. However because of this it also becomes the responsibility of the state to protect children to some degree.

You can be for full protection, no protection or some protection. Obviously we are both for some protection. So the demarcation where the state should intervene is a matter of taste between us not a fundamental principal.
Click to expand...
Some hard realities exist in life for children. In this case you create a scenario that might be considered so. I would prefer the parent and child be deported. The child can return at 18... they are a citizen. Or the Parent can choose a Guardian for their child until they can return legally. Often children have to pay for the misdeeds of their parents. Why should we make it so a child goes into foster care when their parents break drug trafficking laws, but in this case just let them continue breaking the law?

Plus, in your scenario one of the parents had been legally here for 9 months, otherwise the child would not be a citizen, so where are they?

Children need larger protection than from the need to learn Mandarin.
 
Why are you guys acting like going back to their home country would be some kind of death sentence (if it was, then of course the parents and child should stay)? People move across the globe all the time. The only gray area in my mind would be if their lives would be in danger for going back or if the country is in the middle of a war.
Reply With Quote

How anxious would you be to live in China after being born in raised in the United States?
 
Why should we make it so a child goes into foster care when their parents break drug trafficking laws, but in this case just let them continue breaking the law?

Obviously harm has to be considered. Society has a need to incarcerate criminals for the protection of the public. Illegal aliens are not a threat to public safety.

Plus, in your scenario one of the parents had been legally here for 9 months, otherwise the child would not be a citizen, so where are they?

Maybe they are dead.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Oh, cut the drama. It's not black and white, as per usual.

The cited example is both practical -- she quite likely wouldn't have been granted amnesty, BTW -- and fairly convincing. The social need -- read: emotional desire on the part of many -- to make the parents suffer the consequences of their choices is outweighed, in this instance, by what would be a clear cut wrong. Deporting that hypothetical child would be wrong.

Yet we do this sort of nonsense every day.
Click to expand...
Oh please! You are creating the drama here. Either we make people responsible for their actions or we take the responsibility. I prefer to make others responsible for their own actions. Saying, "It would be wrong to deport the child"... IMO means, "It was wrong of her parents to put her in such a position!" not "We are bad people because we made her parents responsible to their actions!"

The more responsibility we give to the government, the less we gain for ourselves.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Why should we make it so a child goes into foster care when their parents break drug trafficking laws, but in this case just let them continue breaking the law?

Obviously harm has to be considered. Society has a need to incarcerate criminals for the protection of the public. Illegal aliens are not a threat to public safety.

Plus, in your scenario one of the parents had been legally here for 9 months, otherwise the child would not be a citizen, so where are they?

Maybe they are dead.
Click to expand...
Illegal aliens are a threat to a society at war with people willing to commit crimes of terror. Giving them an out one way or another simply gives a means for those types to exploit...
 
they are potentially terrorists. Until their is evidence showing that they may be they should not be treated as such.

There is not a sense of urgency upon discovering they are illegal alone.
 
Would you feel as strongly if simply those already born were grandfathered in and those who were born after todays date were not eligible for such protections.
 
IHateGovernment said:
How anxious would you be to live in China after being born in raised in the United States?
Click to expand...

Not very. Which is something their parents should have thought of. Having said that I do want to reiterate that I thikn the process of becoming a citizen should be streamlined and made more efficient. I just don't think turning a blind simply because someone has had a child is a fair means to operate.
 
IHateGovernment said:
they are potentially terrorists. Until their is evidence showing that they may be they should not be treated as such.

There is not a sense of urgency upon discovering they are illegal alone.
Click to expand...
There is enough of one...

The reality is the current law has simply made it worthless to even have a border. They stream accross the borders nightly with little regard or fear of deportation. They squirt out a kid then are guaranteed to have not just them, but their extended family come over and stay.... At the same time the vast majority of them are never even "caught" at all. We don't know who they are, their nationality, whether they were healthy, if they are terrorists or not, what they were carrying... We simply have people here we know absolutely nothing about.

I do know for a fact that if we do nothing now, and we allow these laws to stand, and give outs and special treatment to some and not others, soon it would degenrate back to what we have as the courts would begin trashing laws because of "equal treatment". Either we enforce them, or we don't, in between leaves us vulnerable.
 
Not very. Which is something their parents should have thought of. Having said that I do want to reiterate that I thikn the process of becoming a citizen should be streamlined and made more efficient. I just don't think turning a blind simply because someone has had a child is a fair means to operate.

It isn't fair I admit. But I think its a greater injustice to haul a kid off to China for a decision that was made that they played no part of. The difference between me and you and Damo is that you think the reverse is a greater injustice. I don't know if we will be able to convince the other otherwise.
 
Hypothetical:

Two people are accused of laundering $1M from a pension fund. Person A has two kids and person B has none. Assuming they both have similar criminal backgrounds, should person A be given a different sentence for said crime based on the fact that they have kids?
 
The reality is the current law has simply made it worthless to even have a border. They stream accross the borders nightly with little regard or fear of deportation. They squirt out a kid then are guaranteed to have not just them, but their extended family come over and stay.... At the same time the vast majority of them are never even "caught" at all. We don't know who they are, their nationality, whether they were healthy, if they are terrorists or not, what they were carrying... We simply have people here we know absolutely nothing about.

I agree this is a problem. I fully support reform, just slightly less than you do.

I do know for a fact that if we do nothing now, and we allow these laws to stand, and give outs and special treatment to some and not others, soon it would degenrate back to what we have as the courts would begin trashing laws because of "equal treatment". Either we enforce them, or we don't, in between leaves us vulnerable.

I think you are overreacting a bit with an all or nothing solution. We can screen more for potential terrorists, keep illegals out, and secure our borders and still allow some leeway with the exception I provided. I'm not even suggesting making it extremely simple or even allowing them to get off scott free. Fines are acceptable in my opinion. However I do not believe for a second that granting this consideration will negate all the other positive effects of the reform aspects that we agree upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top