The Debate Thread: Immigration (Legal and Illegal)

[NovU]

Not gonna disagree with you there Andrew. I was just speaking from my own perspective as I thought there was bit much negative views on multiculturalism here.

As for puttincomputers reply...

Do you think regular Americans would take on aliens’ jobs gladly? Would employers be happy paying more for lazy Americans who will ask for more benefits and coverage? Would companies stay competitive against cheaper labored foreign companies? Things are actually not complicated that banning all illegal workers would solve everything? At the end of the day, there are people who are surviving/making good money because of their cheap labor power.

On the topic of American dollars flowing into Mexico, can you provide figures such as % of their earnings being sent to Mexico? I doubt it’s the major reason why people are disliking illegal aliens though. Say for instance, all aliens are gone. Who will pay the rents and fill those vacant housings? Grocery, transportation, clothing, medical/dental service, all means money circulation with taxes here and there. Also meaning someone else’s paying taxes with the income that was generated from those aliens anyways. Like it or not, they’ve become part of your society. You are focusing on why people should hate them with some obvious reasons, when the government already knows the issue and is trying to control the population of immigrants.

Also think about this. We’re at this generation where less of us have to support more older baby boomer generation. With lifespan increasing due to better medical technology and such, we need more and more man power in our nations. With birth rate not being the major helping factor, immigration is a presented solution. Illegal or not, they are bound to flow into our country. Multiculturalism I think is inevitable and is essential. Mexicans, the way I see it is a negative side effect that has to be controlled a bit but not the major problem that people should grow hating on. Also think about how it’d be a minus for your nation if just wiped out all illegal alien population without any moral values to consider.

[Andrew]

Not gonna disagree with you there Andrew. I was just speaking from my own perspective as I thought there was bit much negative views on multiculturalism here.

I don't think anyone is saying multiculturalism is bad (or that immigration is bad for that matter), just that we're going about it the wrong way.

[benji]

think about this. american citizens cant get jobs (16.8% actual unemployment http://voices.washingtonpost.com/econom ... _hits.html *) and the illegals are taking what jobs the citizens could get and then they send that money to mexico and it does not circulate in the states.

You can't have it both ways. Either they're "slaves" making almost non-existent wages or they're "stealing" American jobs. If they were not performing these jobs for under the table below-minimum wages it's not like Americans would be doing them at minimum wage. They simply would stop existing in THIS country and start being done in countries to the South of us. The undocumented citizens aren't causing unemployment, the government is with its' foolish policy.

Acceptance is a two way street. Like I said before, it's not a matter of checking your culture at the door and leaving it all behind but there has to be some integration and assimilation with the culture you're joining. Even if it's as simple as making sure you can speak the language fluently enough to get by.

The only reason there "has to be" is because it's in the best interest of the immigrants. It's not something that must be forced on them to do.

while they are not paying taxes they are getting the benefits from tax money like education and medical care. so yes they are stealing.

The gross majority of them ARE paying taxes, it's impossible to live in this country and not pay taxes if you aren't a millionaire. And I don't know if we really want to be checking peoples immigration status before letting them get emergency room care or letting them report crimes. One reason they're allowed into public schools is to hopefully assist in that assimilation everyone wants, but stupid school policy intended to inflate "performance" to protect the union dues along with the perverse skin-color diversity obsession prevents not just a path to assimilation but actual education.

And even so this is not the problem of the immigrants, it's the problem of the welfare state. There are more Americans "stealing" via the government than there are undocumented citizens doing it. I don't think the fact they vote themselves these benefits makes it any more justified than someone who crossed an imaginary line and has to live in the shadows.

Hindus are allowed to wear turbans instead of helmets when riding bicycles or motorcycles.

The stupider thing is that anyone who isn't Hindu is required by law to wear a helmet. Carving out a stupid exception within a stupid law is doubly stupid.

I don't think all illegal immigrants should be completely demonised but at the end of the day a law is being broken and correct procedure is not being followed. If you're going to be a citizen in a country then you've got to obey the law, the same as anyone who was born there.

But we now live in a society in which every person violates at least one law every single day. Is crossing an imaginary line something that should make one a criminal and get them expelled from society?

Especially in American law where it's a civil infraction, not a criminal one, and there's serious question if the federal government even has authority to place restrictions on immigration.

When there's a bad law the solution is to change it, not enforce it and just go "well, that's the law!"

We shouldn't celebrate the Mexican or Canadian independence days

Do we?

Anchor babies are another problem. Issues like these will place an increasing financial burden on this country in terms of education costs, welfare costs, and law enforcement costs

Yeah, I don't see anchor babies being much more than a tiny drop in the bucket for the coming collapse of the country. There seems to be a consensus that the babyboomers are valid citizens entitled to the wealth of younger generations for some stupid reason.

why should someone who ran across a border get the same (or more, in some instances) benefits as I?

But then again, why should you be entitled to someone else's property just because of the luck of geography?

[NovU]

Hindus are allowed to wear turbans instead of helmets when riding bicycles or motorcycles.

The stupider thing is that anyone who isn't Hindu is required by law to wear a helmet. Carving out a stupid exception within a stupid law is doubly stupid.

It has more to do with respecting the religion(thus their culture). I heard, at all times, good hindus are to wear turbans. Sorta like Christians thanking God before the meals or going to bed.

Not to be a racist, but you know what I sorta noticed. Turban wearing East Indians were rather more honest and less cunning. Just saying from personal experience...

[benji]

It has more to do with respecting the religion

What that I said has more to do with that?

[NovU]

Nothing. Just was adding in the defense of our law.

[benji]

So it was a non sequitur pretending to be a response to my criticism of a stupid law.

[NovU]

Ain't no stupid. At first, I found it bit odd too, but as I got to know their culture better, sorta came to sense.

Gonna admit, might be from their political power though.

[Andrew]

But we now live in a society in which every person violates at least one law every single day. Is crossing an imaginary line something that should make one a criminal and get them expelled from society?

Especially in American law where it's a civil infraction, not a criminal one, and there's serious question if the federal government even has authority to place restrictions on immigration.

When there's a bad law the solution is to change it, not enforce it and just go "well, that's the law!"

I agree, but is it really a bad law? I mean, surely there's more to it than "We don't like foreigners, let's make it hard for them to come into our country".

[benji]

I agree, but is it really a bad law? I mean, surely there's more to it than "We don't like foreigners, let's make it hard for them to come into our country".

What else is there to it?

Ain't no stupid. At first, I found it bit odd too, but as I got to know their culture better, sorta came to sense.

Gonna admit, might be from their political power though.

No, it's stupid. I know you live in a totalitarian country but it's still stupid for it to be against the law to not wear a helmet. And then it's doubly stupid to create a carve out in any law for a particular religion or culture.

Not wearing a helmet is a self-correcting problem, there is no valid rational to criminalize it.

[Andrew]

I guess wanting everyone living in the country to be accounted for, paying taxes, screening for criminal records, that kind of thing.

[benji]

All of which has nothing to do with a need to restrict immigration via quotas, skills/education requirements, and bans on certain nationalities.

[NovU]

No, it's stupid. I know you live in a totalitarian country but it's still stupid for it to be against the law to not wear a helmet. And then it's doubly stupid to create a carve out in any law for a particular religion or culture.

Not wearing a helmet is a self-correcting problem, there is no valid rational to criminalize it.

Lol...

I'm fine with it as long as it's to protect people, at the same time protects the human rights for the religious freedom.

[benji]

In other words, you're fine with a government doing anything it wants as long as it claims it's "protecting people." Banning certain foods and drinks, banning certain media, banning certain ideas, all fine! We're protecting people from themselves! Favoring one religion over another is also fine! Who needs equality under the law?

[NovU]

Lolz... Don't be so cynical, benji.

That law certainly favors a small group of people a bit, but it doesn't concern too many people here as I believe most Canadians are open minded to the concept anyways. Ain't no biggie.

I am assuming people look at it as a part of multiculturalism, not as a big favor.

[benji]

So you'd be okay with a little carve out for karo-kari in murder laws? Or are you only in favor of "religious/cultural freedom" exceptions in law when it's stupid nanny state laws that shouldn't exist in the first place?

[Wall St. Peon]

We shouldn't celebrate the Mexican or Canadian independence days

Do we?

I dunno on that one, I was drunk. I probably had a point, but I haven't a clue what it was now...

Anchor babies are another problem. Issues like these will place an increasing financial burden on this country in terms of education costs, welfare costs, and law enforcement costs

Yeah, I don't see anchor babies being much more than a tiny drop in the bucket for the coming collapse of the country. There seems to be a consensus that the babyboomers are valid citizens entitled to the wealth of younger generations for some stupid reason.

I don't disagree with you, but anchor babies are certainly creating huge issues in public schools (education costs), are entitled to welfare because they're low income US citizens (welfare costs), and law enforcement costs because poverty begets crime. It IS a drop in the bucket...but it's one of the tangible issues that makes sense.

[quote=[benji]

why should someone who ran across a border get the same (or more, in some instances) benefits as I?

But then again, why should you be entitled to someone else's property just because of the luck of geography?[/quote]

I don't think I'm entitled to someone else's property...a geography is moot in my specific case. My great grandparents came across on a boat from Switzerland and immigrated legally...

[benji]

I don't disagree with you, but anchor babies are certainly creating huge issues in public schools (education costs), are entitled to welfare because they're low income US citizens (welfare costs), and law enforcement costs because poverty begets crime. It IS a drop in the bucket...but it's one of the tangible issues that makes sense.

So...we should deport all of the poor?

Eliminating the quotas and requirements and letting them come legally while reforming the dysfunctional government we have seems like a better idea to me.

I don't think I'm entitled to someone else's property...a geography is moot in my specific case.

But you said you should get more government benefits because you were born here.

[NovU]

So you'd be okay with a little carve out for karo-kari in murder laws? Or are you only in favor of "religious/cultural freedom" exceptions in law when it's stupid nanny state laws that shouldn't exist in the first place?

It'd be a totally different case when it comes to murder laws. 'Carving out' might sound extreme for that case.
As for safety enforcement laws, a little flexibility I don't think would hurt, especially if majority of people have no problemo with it.

[benji]

Why would it be totally different? Either you respect their cultural practices and create an exception to the law or you don't and treat everyone equally. You can't go around deciding which of their cultural practices you'll allow and then claim to be "respecting" their cultural practices.

Again, this whole problem goes away if you ditch the stupid helmet law in the first place. It created a problem where there was none for the point of getting off running other peoples lives and getting some money from them.

[koberulz]

So you'd be okay with a little carve out for karo-kari in murder laws? Or are you only in favor of "religious/cultural freedom" exceptions in law when it's stupid nanny state laws that shouldn't exist in the first place?

It'd be a totally different case when it comes to murder laws. 'Carving out' might sound extreme for that case.
As for safety enforcement laws, a little flexibility I don't think would hurt, especially if majority of people have no problemo with it.

Why are safety enforcement laws necessary in the first place?

[NovU]

Why would it be totally different? Either you respect their cultural practices and create an exception to the law or you don't and treat everyone equally. You can't go around deciding which of their cultural practices you'll allow and then claim to be "respecting" their cultural practices.

You are asking me why we should wear seat belts in the car, while not in bus or any other public transit.

Again, this whole problem goes away if you ditch the stupid helmet law in the first place. It created a problem where there was none for the point of getting off running other peoples lives and getting some money from them.

What problem? It prevents the problems.

[benji]

You are asking me why we should wear seat belts in the car, while not in bus or any other public transit.

No, I am not.

What problem? It prevents the problems.

No, it created a problem that didn't exist.

Prior state before Law: Hindu's could wear turbans while riding a bike.
State post-Law: Hindu's could not wear turbans, all must wear helmets.
State post-exception: Hindu's can wear turbans again, all others must wear helmets.

So we went from a state where everyone could wear whatever they wanted on a bike, to a state where there's a special grant to one particular religious group but everyone else faces punishment for not doing what nannies want them to do.

[NovU]

The law pleases majority of people while protecting the rights of smaller groups of people as well. Win-Win situation for both parties. I don't see any wrong in that. Why should you.

Rather, problem solved.

[benji]

You don't see anything wrong with the state punishing you for not wearing a helmet on a bike? The case that brought about this exception, the Sikh man had a ticket for $110. $110 for not wearing a fucking helmet? If someone doesn't feel it important enough to protect their skull from any potential damage, why should the state be fining them for their poor decision?

People should wear helmets by their own discretion because it's SMART, anyone who wears a helmet simply to avoid the fine is an IDIOT who deserves to have their brains splattered on the pavement. If they don't have the judgement to make a proper decision on headwear on their own and need someone to force them to do it then they certainly don't have the proper judgement to vote for stupid shit like this.

Among my other research (aka typing canadian helmet law into Google) apparently not only do you have this blanket law nationally, but each of the provinces have taken it further to denote a SPECIFIC type of helmet as the only valid ones to avoid the fine.

You don't see anything wrong with this at all? You don't see this as an absurd law that shouldn't exist? What won't you outlaw just to get more money for the government?

If you, me and shadowgrin are in a room, and we vote to decide to kill you and steal your wallet, you'd be just fine because the majority was pleased?

Oh, and btw, the exception doesn't exist from what I can tell:

A judge has dismissed the case of a devout Sikh man who argued his religious rights were violated when he received a ticket for riding his motorcycle without a helmet.

In ordering Baljinder Badesha to pay a $110 fine, Ontario Court Justice James Blacklock ruled helmetless motorcycle riding involved the “imposition” of significant extra safety risks that would pose an “undue hardship” on the province.

Badesha, 39, argued he should be exempt from the law requiring a helmet be worn while driving a motorcycle because it violates his constitutional rights to practice his religion requiring him to wear a turban at all times while outside his home.

But Blacklock ruled despite interfering with his freedom of religion, the law was justifiable because wearing a helmet “meaningfully” reduced deaths.

Allowing Badesha or other Sikh motorcyclists to ride without a helmet would not achieve the same level of safety, the judge said.

“There is a clear increase in the risk of devastating brain injury or death with the accompanying burdens on family members and the public in terms of medical needs,” Blacklock ruled.

Unless there was subsequent legislation in Parliament.