Maicca

Are you referring to early history of the United States? If so, I suggest you read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution- it details who is and who is not a citizen, among other things.

I don't see anything in the US Constitution declaring anyone of any race, religion, color, etc. as "illegal." Native Americans born on their soil fall within the boundries of a US territory, I think. Not US citizens, but able to move about...... much like Puerto Ricans. Correct me if I am wrong.

Please cite some examples of our laws which discriminate against some citizen because of their race, religion or skin color.

Your whole point is this: we are a country of immigrants who, over time, decided that we don't want outsiders and then decided to make laws denying said outsiders entry into the US- based on their skin color, race, and religion.



Once again, please cite some laws that we have enacted ( NOT regulations restricting people from certain countries- nationality is NOT a race) that prohibit non-nationals from entering the US based on their skin color, race, and religion.

R2D2

WTF##K??? YOU OBVIOUSLY MISSED MY POINT.

If you knew anything about history, than you'd know the Native Americans were cheated out of their land for the price of about a couple piles of shiet (it was slightly more than that, but u get the point).
All of a sudden what was once for everyone to share, all of a sudden became "illegal"... And yes, it was perfectly “legal” to take, kickout, or kill whoever/whatever "they" could "justify" was "legal" (or they could've simply not say anything or just have "looked the other way").
Lets go deeper why don't we…
Slaves were dragged here against their will, and were technically “illegal” (in terms of rights and status), yet were allowed to stay because of obvious reasons.
People that weren’t the “majority” didn’t have rights. The “laws” made it criminal/illegal to sit in the front of a bus, go to certain “public” bathrooms or even drink out of a water fountain amoung tons of other things. They were “illegal” in every other way pretty much… I believe that was the “exception” to the rule in order for self-gain.
The events after Pearl Harbor is another example of discrimination. People were forced into concentration camps and I bet they're also denied citizenship. Not because they were "Japanese" but because they looked "Asian" (for example: thats the same concept as someone inprisoning all Europeans in America because the "Turkish" people did something). I'm positive they are plenty of great examples of discrimination, but do you think we're really going to hear about it? Of course not. Why not? Because the people denied are never heard from again.
My point is these “laws” that you abide by didn’t apply to everyone. There were plenty of exceptions to the rule, and plenty of individuals to be “above” the law, specially the people who benefitted from it the most - the majority.
Nothings perfect, SPECIALLY the “US Constitution”, however I don’t/won’t deny that it in its current state allows us Americans more Freedoms compared to a majority of countries.

Scott17

I guess I missed your point too- unless you're referring to your head. "KKK uncloaked (if you don't believe me just read his posts)... " This is another example of your less-than-educated drivel. I do not support illegal aliens in this country. Do you? You seem to have a chip on your shoulder(tortilla I presume) about something.

Tomas

R2D2, what we are talking about is the laws that CURRENTLY exist in a soverign country, not how things were before anyone on ScionLife, or even their parents, was alive.

Any and every soverign country has their own laws, rules, society, and culture. Those laws apply within their soverign borders.

Our laws detail the steps needed to enter this country legally. EVERY country has laws controlling that. Those who enter ANY country illegally have, as their very first act in that country, become a criminal - they have broken the law.

By ANY country controlling who they allow into their country, for how long, and for what purposes, they are protecting their citizens, which should be the primary purpose of any government (and is of very few).

Don't come to me with vague historical references of how things used to be, or how "we" did bad things 200-400 years ago. I wasn't here, you weren't here, and "we" didn't do them.

In fact, my ancestors weren't here - they came to this country, legally, following all the rules and laws, just over a hundred years ago - my grandfather was the first here of my family, and that was 1903. That at the VERY least means that I will take absolutely ZERO responsibility for ANYTHING that happened here before then. Got that? We didn't take land away from the natives, import or keep slaves, or anything else that happened before we were even here.

OK, now that we have THAT minor point out of the way, immigration laws have been in place since even before then, and those who followed the rules got to stay, those who didn't were usually shipped back to wherever it was they came from. Since it has been that way for over a century, that's pretty well 'established law, except for the screw-up in 1986 when we granted "amnesty" to the three million criminals here illegally.

Since that time, four or five times that number have scrambled across the border and hidden out in this country waiting for the next amnesty, rather than entering legally. Currently, they are streaming across the border at a rate of over 3800 PER DAY!

So long as we keep granting "amnesty" to criminals illegally in this country, we will continue to have them pouring across the borders hoping to be in the next wave of folks who are allowed to stay by breaking the law.

At the very least we need to be able to stop those who are our avowed enimies from entering this country. To do that we need to examine and pass EVERYONE before they are allowed to enter. Therefore, we must have control of our borders.
________________

As an aside about 'logic.' I suspect it is fairly obvious that one cannot 'assign' me responsibility for what happened in this country before even the first of my ancestors came here, OK?

So does that mean I can be assigned responsibility for what happened in whatever foreign country my ancestors came from?

I've never been there, and was not even yet born, so how could I possibly be assigned responsibility for what their non-representative form of government did? The answer is, I can't.

Follow that to it's logical conclusion: If I could in NO way influence an action (by not having been there or not even being born), by what magic does someone pretend I must take responsibility for another's action?
BZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!
Time's up! They can't!

Tomas

R2D2

Before I can begin debating some very good points Tomas made, I must put this Scott17 in his place.
I hope your not serious fool, because throughout this entire thread you HAVEN'T made a single educated comment. To call people uneducated when you SCOTT17 are the pinnacle of the feebleminded only discredits you more. Perhaps if I put this in terms you can comprehend it might help your feeble little mind. In your own words, "Half of the world is composed of idiots", you are clearly the definition of that half of the world composed of idiots. The other half that you talked about is only something racists would blindly believe. That'll be the day when reality bites you in the ___.

Tomas, you've made some very good points, infact I agree with some of them. Although, I disagree with the segment regarding the assignment of responsibility. If we go within your context, it's true no blame should/could be placed on your shoulders, specially since you've never been to your homeland. That however wasn't my point... My point is if your a person that has reaped the benefits of the discriminations i mentioned above (plus some), than Yes, that person should be held accountable. If your ancestors were the people that, lets say took the land from the Natives then built property on it or somehow profited from it, which in turn was passed down to you, wouldn't you then be held accountable?
Anyhow, stopping people from crossing the borders I agree with completely - primarily for the sake of our safety. However for the people already established here, I don't think its fair for us to simply "kick them out". We ALL were at that stage at some point in time. Even you Tomas have stated your ancestors migrated here just like the rest of us. So, if the tables tables were turned and this situation was somehow applied to your ancestors would you than hold your same stance (beyond the fact that you wouldn't have been born yet)?
Others choose to disagree with any and everything no matter how logical it is, however the only way I believe to solve this issue is to form some kind of compromise. In my personal opinion, I think it'll come down to how well these imigrants are established here already and draw the division lines from there....

Tomas

I'll just comment on two tiny segments of your reply:

"However for the people already established here, I don't think its fair for us to simply "kick them out". We ALL were at that stage at some point in time. Even you Tomas have stated your ancestors migrated here just like the rest of us."

I'll respond in reverse order... My ancestors migrated here, yes. After immigration laws were established and THEY FOLLOWED THOSE LAWS AND RULES. I have absolutely no disagreement with those who immigrate legally, follow the laws, and allow themselves to be assimilated into the society and culture they have obviously chosen by their action of coming here.

Those I object to are those who sneak into this country illegally, don't follow the laws, and refuse to be assimilated into the society and culture they demand the benefits of.

If one wants the benefits one should accept the responsibilities. A part of those responsibilities *I* would demand of immigrants is that they respect, and follow, our laws.

As to the rest of that, it is no different from any other laws. Should we enforce our existing and long established laws and deport those here illegally when they are found? Yes.

Logically, saying that they should not have the law enforced against them simply because they got away with breaking it for an extended period is no different than saying an embezler should not have the law enforced against him simply because he got away with breaking it for an extended period. Piffle!

If I consistantly rip down the highway in excess of 100MPH and get away with it, should I not get a ticket when caught because I've gotten away with it repeatedly and therefore have 'established' my right to do so?

I'm sorry. In 1986 we allowed an amnesty for the roughly 3,000,000 illegal aliens here at that time, in the hope of quenching the flow of illegal aliens and setting the counter back to zero. What happened? The flow increased dramatically, with many of those entering illegally hoping to take advantage of the 'next' amnesty. *sigh*

In fact, with the current loose talk in our country about amnesty - excusing illegal entrants to this country from breaking the law and putting them at the head of the line, ahead of all those many who have FOLLOWED the law - has caused the flood of folks pouring across the border to rise to over 3800 per day. That's nearly 6,000,000 a year if it continues (and there is NOTHING to make me believe it will just suddenly stop unless we take drastic actions).

"So, if the tables were turned and this situation was somehow applied to your ancestors would you than hold your same stance (beyond the fact that you wouldn't have been born yet)?"

Yes, because the same damned laws DID apply to my ancestors and they chose to follow them. Not only did they follow the laws, they did their best to be assimilated into this society and culture. They learned English, learned and obeyed unfamiliar laws, became seamlessly integrated into this country. They chose to live here because they respected and appreciated what this country offered. They became "Americans" not "Hyphenated-Americans."

They didn't come here and make demands to be taught in their old language, to have government forms in their language, to have free translators supplied so they wouldn't have to put themselves out to learn the language where they CHOSE to live.

Very simply, too many folk in those recent demonstrations (01MAY) came here illegally and chose to fly the flag of a foreign nation, to speak in a foreign tongue, and to flaunt the fact that they didn't HAVE to follow our laws, respect out flag, speak our language - in fact the very purpose of those demonstrations was to purposely disrupt as much business as possible and negatively affect the lives of as many US citizens as they could manage.

When I see a huge mass of foreign citizens, flying their foreign flags, marching down the middle of our avenues chanting in a foreign tongue, I wonder if other governments would just meekly back down like ours did, or if there would be fire hoses and barricades. Indeed, what would happen to such a demonstration in the country who's flag they were waving?

I was in the military to defend the rights and lives of our citizens, but NOT to just hand over to these foreign thugs those same 'rights' that they do not deserve, did not earn. They can get in line just like everyone else.

Tom

R2D2

I respect what your saying... My ancestors came here basically the same way yours did (legally), and now we benefit from of it.
Hypothetically, if your ancestors came here "illegally", but followed the laws, respected the land, and assimilate into society just as ours did would you still feel they should be "kicked out"?
You see, many if not all races (including ours) have individuals that attempt to reach the U.S. no matter what it takes for the same reasons our ancestors did. Not all of them have the opportunity like ours did, so they do what they can to make it. The U.S. is one of the most prosperous lands be in, can you blame them for wanting try? From your statements you make it seem like "everyone" who's here illegally is a criminal. For many, the only crime they've commited is trying to survive here in the U.S.A.... Now, in my book that's not a crime @ all.
On top of it all, we already deport criminals (when caught) if they're not here legally...we've been doing that for some time now. The question is about the ones that haven't commited "crimes".
Do these law abiding citizens that respect the land and its diverse culture while integrating into society deserve to be sent back on the basis of reaching this land illegally? I vote NO.

Tomas

Entering the United States illegally is breaking the law. Those here illegally are therefore criminals. Their very first step inside our borders was an illegal act.

There are legal ways to enter most countries - that is usually not just sneaking over the border and demanding 'rights.'

If our hypothetical ancestors came here illegally they would have immediately shown that they did NOT respect or follow our laws. C'mon, if a person is here illegally that means they have broken the law to be here - it is patently impossible for an illegal alien to not have broken US law. (I.E., to have commited a criminal act.)

"Immigrants" are those here legally, those here illegally are not "immigrants" but "illegal aliens."

Calling "illegal aliens" "law abiding citizens" is simply perverting the language. The two are NOT the same thing. They are not law abiding and they are not US citizens.

(I may actually want you in my house, but even if the door is open, knock first, don't just walk in and expect dinner.)

Maicca

By your own words, all non-white people have reaped the benefits of discrimination. How? It's called Affirmative Action.

Affirmative action (U.S. English), or positive discrimination (British English), is a policy or a program of giving certain preferences to certain (usually under-represented) groups. This typically focuses on education, employment, government contracts, health care, or social welfare.

Tomas already covered it, but let's make sure this is understood.

IF YOU COME INTO THE UNITED STATES (OR ANY COUNTRY) ILLEGALLY THEN YOU ARE NOT LAW-ABIDING, YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS, AND YOU ARE NOT RESPECTING THE LAND.



You know, I've never really thought about this, Tomas, but it is SO UNFAIR for us to call people who have been convicted of criminal offenses CRIMINALS. I mean, besides breaking a law or two, they live here.........surviving...... and definitely integrating into society when the law comes after them.

We really should stop this abhorrent practice, and rename all "criminals" as "socially misaligned."

How about it?

Scott17

It seems you are hung up on race, and calling people racists, more than addressing the issue of ILLEGAL immigration. That's what people do when they are not comfortable in their own skin. Are you racially challenged in some way? I personally vote NO on illegals remaining in our country and I think Our borders should be protected by machine-gunners. That would fix the problem real quick. Another problem is the Mexicans entering illegally aren't assimilating with us, they are merely trying to extend Mexico. And in case you haven't noticed, it's not the rocket-scientist types that are making the swim, it's the feeble poor that show up and squeeze off 12 kids. America has it's own problems and doesn't need Mexicos too!

R2D2

If your automatically going to assume ALL people who've traveled here through non-legal means are criminals instantly (besides the only crime of coming here) than we have nothing else we can logically debate. Yes, technically they have committed "a" crime, but if it were your or your children’s "only" means for survival I'd bet you'd do the same. Can you honestly say the people who came here illegally are the exact same as rapists and murderers? C'mon now... Lets be serious.
There's no point debating with individuals that are closed minded to any possibilities...
Our country was founded through immigrants (however in their time there was no “illegal” because there was no freakin legal system even in their time you could've labeled some of them illegal at one point or another)(i.e. pilgrims).

scionofPCFL

When you say "ancesestors", do you refer to people that came over in the past 60 years or prior to that?

The reason I ask is because you seem rather intellegent and would therefore know that the term "ancesestors" implies quite a few years ago, for instance in my mind, at least 100, and in other's maybe even longer. My confusion is this, prior to WWII, there were relatively few laws on immigration. And in fact, prior to 1900, there were zero laws regarding immigration. So, anyone who was here, was automatically here legally, they just had to sign a few documents and recite a few oaths to become citizens.

Therefore, comparing legal immigration 100 years ago to legal immigration now isn't even the same thing.

But then again, I'm not too hung up on what's legal/illegal for most things, because I know that all of the laws now are written by multi-million dollar lobbyists working for multi-billion dollar special interest groups w/o regard to the common good. I'm more concerened about my own conceance and what's right and wrong. So maybe my opinion doesn't hold much weight in this discussion.

Maicca

Main Entry: 2criminal
Function: noun
1 : one who has committed a crime
2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime

You're sublimating, rationalizing, etc. If your children are starving, is it OK to steal? If your dad needs a kidney, is it OK to take one from another? If someone steals your food, is it OK to take his hand off?

I'm poor and I live in the inner city; I can't eat because I have no money. So, it's OK to deal drugs to make money so I can eat.

Same thought process.


No, they are not in the same class as rapists and murderers- but both groups are criminals, which is something that you seem incapable of admitting here.

R2D2

^ What? I thought I've been openly admitting they've commited a crime.
So are they "criminals" for being in the U.S? Technically by definition, yes they are, but to put them in the same "group" as "criminals" is absolutely preposterous. Now was I "incapable" of admitting they've violated a law? No, infact I believe I've been admitting they've violated the law, however I don't think one can put them in the same light as all criminals you guys are. Infact, it seems like you can't see it any other way except to label them criminals.
What was once openly "accepted" has now become illegal... For one generation immigration was totally legal, but for next generation its "criminal"?.. - Outrageous

evilBOXevil

I'm trying to understand your 'logic'.
My father is descendended from some of the first english to have come to this land, way the hell back, when they landed in Virginia. And my mother's family (immigrants)are all from Scotland.
...so by your logic, I'm inherently evil for being descended from the 'evil white devils', but have never been to my "homeland". In which case I'm half accountable for discrimination in this country? Hell no. This is my homeland, and I'm only responsible for myself (which is a very important part of American culture that seems to elude you, and all of your marching illegal friends).
The english tortured the Scottish for 800+ years...
"Oh what to do. I find myself accountable for my own peoples suffering, but I've never been to my homeland. I guess if I ever go there, I'll have to beat half of myself for my peoples crimes...but which half to beat on?!" This doesn't make sense.

I had a Toyota that was stolen 4 years ago. A neighbor said she witnessed it, but thought it was somebody I knew. She said that it was stolen by 2 hispanic males. So, I guess I should hold at least the next 2 hispanic people I see accountable for it, huh? Or maybe all hispanic people, since those responsible are no longer present. This is what your posts read out to. Your thinking is exactly what the birth of racism is.
To call Scott17 "KKK uncloaked" is just stupid. Read your own stupid crap, and just swap everything Native and mexican with white, and vice versa. You'll read the biggest bunch of racist crap ever.

Are you implying that the Mexican/south american people who come across the border are just the natives coming to claim whats theirs? It's not theirs, they're not the natives, and they cant. Period. People are not afraid of them. It's only the residents OBEYING THE LAWS of this country that allow so many illegal people to walk freely down our streets. Otherwise average US residents would be marching down the streets, waving US flags, speaking english- and eliminating the Illegal immigration problem themselves.

TimmyT

r2, on the opposite side of the spectrum, you assume that illegal aliens only crim is illegally immigrating to the US.

Not paying taxes is a crime.
If they do pay taxes, then forging or stealing a SSN is a crime.
If they are attempting to bring thier families over illegally that is a crime and the cycle starts all over again.
Not to mention how many drive illegally, and break any other law any other human is prone to brake. (all of them)

yes illegal aliens are all criminals.

R2D2

evilBOXevil, missed my point...
We were talking about accountability... if you somehow profited from your ancestors taking of native property, than yes you should be held accountable. Say for instance, your ancestors robbed the natives took their land which was in turn passed down to you through the generations.. In that case you'd be accountable.
How about you account for the suffering your ancestors caused when they helped murder and steal from the Native Americans. With your hispanic reference, the only people that should be held accountable would be the ones who Profit from it, not any more not any less.

R2D2

I'm not saying their not, all I'm saying theres a huge difference.
On top of that, I bet they'd love to live here legally and pay their dues, however in a lot of cases by doing so meant they'd be getting deported... Double negative...
I'd say lots of illegals would probably rather start a family here so their children would become citizens even if they weren't.
As for the driving, thats just silly... Do we not ALL drive above the speed limit "sometimes"? Does that make us all criminals? No.

evilBOXevil

"The check's in the mail."
Dude, that's just stupid. How about you just try and collect on my accountability.

Welcome to America. You are accountable for yourself. You are able to live as an individual, and you now live in a society where you are able to express yourself as an individual. You are not accountable to the actions of others. I know it's hard to understand, but maybe you'll adjust to this kind of freedom.

Your ancestral/tribal mentality has not functioned well in any other part of the world, and it fails miserably here too. Base it on Catholicism, culture, upbringing...whatever the hell you want, but this gang mentality takes away your freedom, strips you of your dignity, and leaves you an individually helpless, selfless, and meaningless person.

I'm not responsible for what my own father does, let alone what some jackass may (or may not) have done 400 years ago. I'm not going to justify what my ancestors have done. I don't feel the need to justify myself for others. And as far as anyone trying to make me pay for what others have done--Try to collect. You don't even have a right to one minute of my time, unless I choose to give it.
Sorry, folks. Your reaching your hands out, but nobody's going to stop to fill it.

I'm not a people, I'm a person. You should try being one too. It's very liberating.

Scott17

Yeah, the great part is when they are driving and get into an accident and have no insurance. Or when they want to squeeze out those 12 kids and show up at the county hospital with no inurance. I think it's safe to say that NOBODY gets your "point" or understands your "logic"