Rapid Quiz for Sir Evil

[Damocles]

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.

I think you are denying the reality of the situation. Letting this one consideration would lead to others as "fair treatment" was applied by the courts, the laws would be unenforceable and we would end up being in exactly the same situation as before. It's like erosion... It starts with such a tiny little crack...

 

[IHateGovernment]

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?

No because this person has already shown themselves to be a thief and therefore is a threat to the property of other American citizens.

As for illegal immigration. Yes I think it should be illegal but I don't think its that bad a thing. I see it more as breaking a rule. We obvioulsy have to have laws about immigration for without them we would be overwhelmed and our social services would require huge sums of money.

Why I am against illegal immigrants is only because they broke the law not because of something bad or harm they have caused. I don't even consider it a wrong act it simply is a necessity that we have immigration law and thus there will be people who break it.

 

[IHateGovernment]

I think you are denying the reality of the situation. Letting this one consideration would lead to others as "fair treatment" was applied by the courts, the laws would be unenforceable and we would end up being in exactly the same situation as before. It's like erosion... It starts with such a tiny little crack...

Not the slippery slope!!! This is kind of like Dano's argument against my suggestion for the use of supermax prisons instead of execution. He says that liberals will say they are inhumane and will eventually let them out. Therefore we should execute them before the liberals get a chance to undo what we have done.

I always reply that we have to rely on doing the right thing in each instance. We can't choose to do something wrong in the short term to avert something more wrong in the future.

It is always best to choose the right decison at the moment and hope the right one will be made in the future. This isn't totatlly pragmatic I admit but neither are liberty or freedom.

Let's decide to make the one exception and use the logic outlined to deny other exceptions. I reject commiting a wrong act as a defense against more wrong acts.

 

[LadyT]

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.

Does your anectdote have the potential to be a sad situation? Yes. Is it necessarily? No. I for one don't buy into the "America's best country in world and any movement outside would be absolutely horrible" bit. But the big picture is border and homeland security issues and our safety. I'm not willing to sacrifice my safety and the safety of my loved ones for some potentially sad kid. We have to establish a fast and effective protocols for processing immigrants which include proper background checks for everyone. Who knows what kinds of gangs or terror affiliations people have before they come the US. The greater injustice is selling out the American people by having no border controls or proper protocols in place to filter out potential enemies.

 

[IHateGovernment]

I'm not willing to sacrifice my safety and the safety of my loved ones for some potentially sad kid.

Whoa thats some reaching. The border will not become a sieve just because we give some consideration of effects of deportaiton on children. It is rediculous to think without universal deportation that we will have no security. Border security is important and should be done as a matter of course. However I don't think for one second that even if we implemented your plans that we would stop terrorists. They will find a way.


We have to establish a fast and effective protocols for processing immigrants which include proper background checks for everyone. Who knows what kinds of gangs or terror affiliations people have before they come the US. The greater injustice is selling out the American people by having no border controls or proper protocols in place to filter out potential enemies.

Where have I said I am against any of these things. Between you two and myself we only differ in one major point. Background checks for terror and gangs are important. This considertion is irrelevant to the difference between us though.

 

[LadyT]

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.

That sounds reasonable, but we only have a X amount of resources for screening people, do you think its fair that we allow them to stay here at the expense of backing up the courts and system for those that have been trying to do it legally from the start? Jake has a child so we'll expedite his case ahead of everyone else that has been doing it correctly from the start? I don't think so. I've seen people go through hell trying to get visa's, green cards and trying to become citizens. It takes years. A coworker of mine came to work in tears over the administrative hurdles, should she and her kids be put on the back burner for this person that knowingly broke the law? I say no.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Nothing says that you have to fasttrack these illegals. I'm just saying don't deport them if they have american children. I don't suggest making others wait in line for them. It isn't an either or situation in this case.

 

[Damocles]

I think you are denying the reality of the situation. Letting this one consideration would lead to others as "fair treatment" was applied by the courts, the laws would be unenforceable and we would end up being in exactly the same situation as before. It's like erosion... It starts with such a tiny little crack...

Not the slippery slope!!! This is kind of like Dano's argument against my suggestion for the use of supermax prisons instead of execution. He says that liberals will say they are inhumane and will eventually let them out. Therefore we should execute them before the liberals get a chance to undo what we have done.

I always reply that we have to rely on doing the right thing in each instance. We can't choose to do something wrong in the short term to avert something more wrong in the future.

It is always best to choose the right decison at the moment and hope the right one will be made in the future. This isn't totatlly pragmatic I admit but neither are liberty or freedom.

Let's decide to make the one exception and use the logic outlined to deny other exceptions. I reject commiting a wrong act as a defense against more wrong acts.

I don't think that it is a wrong act to show a child that their parents are responsible for their own illegal activity. I reject the idea that giving people more responsibility over the consequences of their actions rather than giving the government repsonsibility is a wrong action.

 

[Damocles]

Nothing says that you have to fasttrack these illegals. I'm just saying don't deport them if they have american children. I don't suggest making others wait in line for them. It isn't an either or situation in this case.

Would you deport them when their child had reached their majority?

 

[LadyT]

Whoa thats some reaching. The border will not become a sieve just because we give some consideration of effects of deportaiton on children.

From my view, it already is because we do.

It is rediculous to think without universal deportation that we will have no security. Border security is important and should be done as a matter of course. However I don't think for one second that even if we implemented your plans that we would stop terrorists. They will find a way.

Perhaps. But lets get a paper trail going so it will be easier to discover them.

Where have I said I am against any of these things. Between you two and myself we only differ in one major point. Background checks for terror and gangs are important. This considertion is irrelevant to the difference between us though.

Which is why I think every one should under go them before given citizenship or even temporary residence. Once its discovered you haven't undergone one, its to the back of hte line you go.

 

[IHateGovernment]

I don't think that it is a wrong act to show a child that their parents are responsible for their own illegal activity. I reject the idea that giving people more responsibility over their actions rather than giving the government repsonsibility is a wrong action.

Damo I know that this is not an absolute for you though. You're not an Anarcho capitalist. Would you support a child not being able to attend school because there parent's can't afford it.

I don't think this is a fundamental issue. This is a matter of to what degree are we willing to tolerate lack of responsbility. I have a little more tolerance than you. But this is not a fundamental difference.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Would you deport them when their child had reached their majority?

Sure. No victim in that case.

 

[IHateGovernment]

From my view, it already is because we do.

What we do now is a far cry from what I recommend. We barely have an illegal immigration process. Hell right now we just do catch and release which is a joke.

Perhaps. But lets get a paper trail going so it will be easier to discover them.

Agreed

Which is why I think every one should under go them before given citizenship or even temporary residence. Once its discovered you haven't undergone one, its to the back of hte line you go.

Agree so long as we agree that back of the line doesn't automatically mean deportation.

 

[Damocles]

Damo I know that this is not an absolute for you though. You're not an Anarcho capitalist. Would you support a child not being able to attend school because there parent's can't afford it.

Of course not. This, however, has little to do with your scenario. The worst that is happening to the child is they are going to live someplace where they will need to learn a new language.

I don't think this is a fundamental issue. This is a matter of to what degree are we willing to tolerate lack of responsbility. I have a little more tolerance than you. But this is not a fundamental difference.

Actually, I don't think you CAN lack responsibility. It simply moves. If the parent will not be held responsible then society takes on that responsibility. There is not an option where nobody is responsible.

I believe fundamentally in keeping the responsibility on the individual rather than the state and only in need should we render unto the state the responsibility that otherwise would be that of the individual.

In this case we are protecting a child from learning a language and from entering a new culture... I don't think that we have reached the level of necessity where we should take on the responsibility...

 

[IHateGovernment]

Of course not. This, however, has little to do with your scenario. The worst that is happening to the child is they are going to live someplace where they will need to learn a new language.

Ok lets save the responsibility talk then and just talk about level of harm. Because of course as you know someone could just as easily lay down the same kind of rhetoric for saying why education should not be publically funded.

As for harm though I disagree it is limited to learning a new language. There are more consequences than that for being deported to a country like China, Myanmar or North Korea.

 

[Damocles]

Of course not. This, however, has little to do with your scenario. The worst that is happening to the child is they are going to live someplace where they will need to learn a new language.

Ok lets save the responsibility talk then and just talk about level of harm. Because of course as you know someone could just as easily lay down the same kind of rhetoric for saying why education should not be publically funded.

As for harm though I disagree it is limited to learning a new language. There are more consequences than that for being deported to a country like China, Myanmar or North Korea.

You cannot necessarily say that the child WILL be harmed because of it, though. Just as you cannot say that they will not learn an important lesson if their parents were given that responsibility. We know the level of harm for children with no access to education, we cannot prove harm to a child just for living in China.

 

[IHateGovernment]

There are things we know will happen if they don't get education. There are things we also don't know will happen. We can't even say that a child will not learn to read or multiply because they didn't get an education. What we can say with certainty is that it will be harder for them to achieve such things.

The same is true for being sent to a repressive country or a poor country even. For one thing many countries don't have universal education so one consequence could be that they don't get to go to school and thus it is harder for them to learn to read or multiply.

Thus we are left with the same scenario just is a different location.

Not being able to go to school in the US.
Not being able to go to school in Myanmar.

 

[IHateGovernment]

There is way more at stake than just language.

 

[Damocles]

There are things we know will happen if they don't get education. There are things we also don't know will happen. We can't even say that a child will not learn to read or multiply because they didn't get an education. What we can say with certainty is that it will be harder for them to achieve such things.

The same is true for being sent to a repressive country or a poor country even. For one thing many countries don't have universal education so one consequence could be that they don't get to go to school and thus it is harder for them to learn to read or multiply.

Thus we are left with the same scenario just is a different location.

Not being able to go to school in the US.
Not being able to go to school in Myanmar.

You just assume that the parent would choose to deport the child along with them, that they would be poor when they got there, that the repression would be used specifically on them, and many other things...

While my decision assumes nothing. Given proof that the parent was illegal they get deported and put back at the end of the line. That's all...

I do believe that with Communist countries one is allowed to get amnesty immediately upon making it here, much like Cuba I believe that many Chinese are afforded the ability to stay legally if they report their arrival... (Of course, I am not sure here...) If not then the law would have to apply...

 

[IHateGovernment]

You just assume that the parent would choose to deport the child along with them, that they would be poor when they got there, that the repression would be used specifically on them, and many other things...

That is because the law is not written to be tailored for specific instances. However it should be ready for the worst of contingencies. The law should address a poor person arriving with their child in a repressive land.

While my decision assumes nothing. Given proof that the parent was illegal they get deported and put back at the end of the line. That's all...

It does assume something though. It assumes that the detriment of allowing the illegal to remain in the country outweighs the detriment of deporting the American child or putting them in foster care. This is actually more often the opposite.

I do believe that with Communist countries one is allowed to get amnesty immediately upon making it here, much like Cuba I believe that many Chinese are afforded the ability to stay legally if they report their arrival... (Of course, I am not sure here...) If not then the law would have to apply...

Problem is this doesn't make allowances for countries that become repressive. This happens all the time Iran, Myanmar, Cuba, Pakistan.