About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind

January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

[TaxRelief]

Perhaps you need to be more specific.

There are many cultural differences throughout the United States. Recently there was a Yankee study of college students that concluded that Southerners were quicker to anger than yankees. The study involved the deliberate bumping and name-calling of students in the classroom hall, no apologies and then some sort of cursing. Apparently, the southerners reacted more negatively than the northerners.

What the study organizers failed to understand was this: When a Southerner curses, he is very angry and is challenging someone to a fight, or threatening them. Northerners, on the other hand, have several curse words that are apparently just colorful adjectives, and carry no implied threat.

Northerners and west-coasters cringe at the idea of being "more specific" while Southerners pride themselves on teaching their children very carefully what not to say to others, even those with whom they disagree.

For instance, we do not allow our children to use the words "stupid", or "dumb" and we certainly frown on any cursing. We also teach our children not to swear or take impulsive oaths. We teach our children to comment on a particular behavior, rather than labeling an entire person based on certain actions.

Mr. Lead Moderator, I am suggesting that you be more specific about acceptable vs. unacceptable posting.

Some possible specific guidelines might be:

• Be prepared to provide proof to substantiate any claim that you make.
  
  
• Refute with logic rather than claiming an argument is simply wrong.
  
  
• Read an entire post, before responding to the first sentence in the post. (Ideally, when joining an argument, you should read the entire thread or all of the posts of the user to whom you are responding).
  
  
• Avoid use of the recognized curse words (sports threads and terrorist threads excepted, LOL).
  
  
• Be ready to admit when you are wrong.
  
  
• Ask the moderator to pull a post if you regret what you have said.
  
  

While the above recommendations may appear obvious to those from the our more seasoned FReepers or to those trained to debate, undoubtedly, there are many who are not sure what "acceptable discussion" is.

[TaxRelief]

You began your post by claiming that we obeying the LAW is not justification for certain actions. Your argument, I believe, is that "The Law can be broken, when the law is wrong".

Bastiat, the French economic philosopher, wrote in The Law:

No society can exist if respect for the law does not to some extent prevail; but the surest way to have the laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction, the citizen finds himself in the cruel dilemma of either losing his moral sense or of losing respect for the law, two evils of which one is as great as the other, and between which it is difficult to choose.

As an individual, I would surely be tempted to break the law over something as important as moving to a country that will provide the means with which I would be able to feed my family. There would be no question of that. Furthermore, I would also be willing to accept most consequences: constant deportation, attacks on my dignity, etc. On the other hand, I would not be willing to accept long-term imprisonment since that would be counter to my purposes.

The question here is not about an individual's choice to break the law, but about the lawmaker's decision to reward the law-breakers at the expense of the law-abiders.

There is no way to safely stem the flow of illegal immigration. Opening the borders would still require the screening of aliens to determine whether or not they will comply with the law of our land.

We would hope to be able to keep out pedophiles, murderers and bandits, but how long would it be before the ACLU rose up to defend those who commit atrocities against their fellow man? (I can hear the pleas already; They haven't been convicted by the standards of American law and He was forced into it.)

How long would it be before the ACLU rose up to defend those who do not have employment prospects within our borders? (How can he find a job, if he is not there for interviews?)

Then how long will it be before the ACLU rose up to defend the homeless, unemployed immigrant? (We must provide housing for new immigrants until they can get a job and provide housing for themselves. Undoubtedly at the law-abiding citizens expense.)

Then how long would it be before the ACLU rose up, again, to defend the inadequately housed? (We must provide adequate housing, schooling and medical care for those who come here legally seeking employment).

In other words, as freeing as it may sound, opening the borders would guarantee a return to the pioneer days of lawlwssness, of train and bank robberies, of rampant prostitution, of plague, of poverty-ridden slums and of the equivalent of slavery. OR, opening the borders would impose such a cost on our society, that it would ensure the collapse of a Free America.

We can certainly set free borders as a goal, but in order to successfully handle the financial burden of such a manuever, we must first dispense with all public service programs that steal from Peter to pay Paul.

Opening the borders to "your tired, your weak, your hungry" is the last step we, as a nation, should take in a program that attempts to fix our very corrupt legislative system.

[Publius6961]

Intelligent discussion relies on proof and logic, rather than belittling the personality and intellect of your opponent.

More to the point, this mental midget insists on continuing to insist that there is no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, by his mindless use of the unqualified word, "immigration".

[TaxRelief]

I assume you left off your < /sarcasm > tag?

For clarification purposes, was that a joke? or do you mean manners are a minor consideration?

It can be difficult to truly understand "meaning" when there is no facial expression to interpret.

[Publius6961]

Wrong.

LOL!

It's remarkable how many presumed adults post in this forum that don't have a clue of the difference between assertion and fact.
I get warm and fuzzy when I see one of those idiots slapped down. Thank you.

[Publius6961]

No sarcasm tag required. I was referring to the person you were responding to in your post #453. And that is just a summary. Ask me what I really think. Or you can go and see for yourself in that mindless article-thread, "Whatever happened to 'send me your huddled masses'"?

[Torie]

Do you approve of the plan to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with social security benefits?

"Do you approve of a plan that makes agressive use of temporary guest workers to reduce the economic incentive for illegal immigration, while allowing some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States to move towards legal status provided they register for temporary status, stay employed, pay social security taxes, and are eligible to apply for permanent legal status from their home countries only after a period of six years, in the same manner as other applicants?"

The wording of poll questions DOES count for something, no? I found the poll question on FR so loaded that I almost went for "yes" out of annoyance, but calmed down and clicked undecided. Ya, my version is probably a bit loaded too. It just shows that I can play the game myself, no?

[staytrue]

Is this the famous shut-down-the-discussion-with-rudeness technique?

No, it is a response to the usual one line responses on immigration threads that go. "because it is a crime", "what part of illegal do you not understand", "because they are criminals", etc.

[staytrue]

Be ready to admit when you are wrong.

I'm afraid that much like the famous ridiculous line from "love story", being a freeper means never admitting you are wrong.

[Sabertooth]

The difficulty on that front is NOT my problem, it's yours.

And futhermore, you decided to REPEAT the lie that I am trying to disrupt the thread. I have no respect for liars.

Yeah, yeah.

Let's recap:

You came on to this thread with suspicions, off-topic litmus tests to disprove guilt-by-association fallacies, and the undefined term, "immigration restrictionist," which you appeared to be polishing as an ad hominem.

There are some very questionable associations among the immigration restricitonist crowd.

< -snip- >

So, as it stands, I believe I have three good reasons to harbor a very strong distrust of the restrictionists - distrust that has spread to some other cultural issues of late. And it's going to take a LOT of convincing for me to reconsider the positions I have taken about it at this point. Unless there are is some housecleaning, though, I will be a VERY hard sell on the vast majority of the restrictionist agenda.
hchutch - #82

Despite the ill will with which you began posting on this thread, I've answered your on-topic questions, promised a half-dozen times to deal with your Sam Francis fixation on a stand-alone thread of your own posting, and asked you to clarify what you mean by "immigration restrictionist," the term you introduced to this thread.

You've been nothing but dodgy, and prone to cap key histrionics.

You complained that there was an attempt to silence you, (quite laughably, because you offered as evidence the fact that I didn't file any abuse report on you), yet you haven't taken the numerous opportunities I've offered to make yourself clear as to your position and definitons.

I don't find you to be a sincere poster, or interested in genuine debate. I find your posts to be disingenuous, in their best light.

I consider repeated, melodramatic posts about everything but the topic to be attempts at disruption, however weak they might be.

Feel free to continue to avoid making yourself plain about your definitions, positions, etc., as I'm about done with you.

I will, however, fulfill my part of the Sam Francis bargain, whenever you should decide to post your thread on that topic. Please flag me to that at your earliest convenience. When I reply, my posts to you will be topical and I will answer your questions on the topic, provided that they aren't based on fallacious reasoning. If they are, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability even as I address the fallacies. I will also post on your thread with the understanding that any expectation on my part of sincerity on yours is probably unrealistic, and that any questions I might ask you should be considered rhetorical from the start, and you may feel free to ignore them and change the subject anytime it suits you.

I trust that you will not feel silenced in the bargain.

[hchutch]

Your disdain for me just breaks my heart. /sarcasm

I am pleased to have the disdain of a liar, which you have proven yourself to be by repeating yet again the FALSE claims that I am trying to disrupt this thread.

Quite frankly, I do not believe a word you posted in 471.

[Sabertooth]

Quite frankly, I do not believe a word you posted in 471.

By all means, then, bookmark the post.

If I'm bluffing, it would be easy to call me on it.

Cheers

[Sabertooth]

The wording of poll questions DOES count for something, no? I found the poll question on FR so loaded that I almost went for "yes" out of annoyance, but calmed down and clicked undecided. Ya, my version is probably a bit loaded too. It just shows that I can play the game myself, no?

Of course it does. A poll is only as good as its sample population and its questions.

Since I don't frequently write polls, however, all I can do is post the results and the questions as they stand.

"Do you approve of a plan that makes agressive use of temporary guest workers to reduce the economic incentive for illegal immigration, while allowing some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States to move towards legal status provided they register for temporary status, stay employed, pay social security taxes, and are eligible to apply for permanent legal status from their home countries only after a period of six years, in the same manner as other applicants?"

The main problem with your question is the use of the word "temoporary."

Serial "temporary" designations prior to a permanent redesignation add up to a sum that is not temporary.

In the case of the Bush plan, "temporary" means "permanence to be named later."

In addition, it's hardly clear the the President would ever eventually enforce our immigration laws against his legalized-Illegals, should they fail to abide by the terms of his Amnesty-by-stages.

Consider the following...

There are upwards of 400,000 individuals who have received final deportation orders that are hiding in our communities. Their appeals have run out, and those orders tell them, “it’s time to go.” But, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement can’t find them! What’s worse, 80,000 of those people have criminal convictions, just like Miguel Angelo Gordoba! They were in the hands of our law enforcement. Can you imagine opening the doors of our prisons and letting 80,000 criminals run back into the streets? Well folks, that’s exactly what has happened with these 80,000 criminal aliens.

What’s more, 3,800 of those people with final deportation orders are from countries with a known Al-Qaeda presence.
Statement of the Honorable Charlie Norwood
The CLEAR Act of 2003
July 9, 2003

Compare these figures to those of two years ago...

The Justice Department's decision to track down and deport 6,000 Middle Eastern aliens who've been ordered to leave the country attracted howls of protest from all the usual places earlier this week. The government has a list of more than 300,000 deportable immigrants.
Deportation Disorder
National Review Online
John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru | January 10th, 2002

These deportable Illegals from two years ago, in the aftermath of September 11th, are mostly still here, including tens of thousands of hardened, violent criminals and Illegals from Al Qaeda nations.

If the terror attacks were insufficient to compel President Bush to carry out even the minimum enforcement of the standing deportation orders, then he sure as heck ain't gonna deport any legalized-Illegals down the road.

So, I don't think "temporary" has any place in a well-written poll question about the Bush Amnesty.

[Torie]

Well I can't find much excuse for the failure to enforce court deportation orders. The folks are clearly on the lamb, so I guess it is a matter of whether expending the resources to find them is worth the candle. We end up back with economics. If there are jobs to be filled at the illegal wage rate, they will come. Thus the key is to fill them under a system where the US has some control over it. The only other alternative is to put employers in jail. I keep saying that, but it seems not to generate comment.

[TaxRelief]

Eliminate the minimum wage.

[TLI]

Go for it. I will be waiting to see Tancredo's totals in the november election. And when I see the number of about 1500, I will wondering "what were these goofballs thinking ?".

I wish I could get a list of those 1500 "goofballs" as any task such a group would be challenged with would be accomplished in short order.

Let's see, successful legislation to close a gaping security breach that no other nation on the PLANET would tolerate?

piece of cake . .

How about a real challenge... educating 60 percent of American Citizen voters that the Democrats/Liberals really do follow a communist agenda? Now THAT would be useful.

TLI

[chicagolady]

""Does it scare you that folks take on the idea that if you agree with Bush's immigration stance then you can not be a conservative and you may even be a traitor to the US ?""

NO, I haven't noticed those. I guess I am to consumed with the personal attacks against myself.

Let's kiss and make up.

[Sabertooth]

Well I can't find much excuse for the failure to enforce court deportation orders. The folks are clearly on the lamb, so I guess it is a matter of whether expending the resources to find them is worth the candle.

It's a matter of a few things. Our government fails to make the reasonable presumption that Illegals with deportation orders are flight risks (in fact, all Illegals are flight risks). This hasn't changed since 9/11, and we've got 100,000 more deportable Illegals now than we did then. Once the deportation order is handed down, the Illegal in question should be taken by the bailiff and held pending deportation.

President Bush hasn't even sought this minimal, common sense modification of the status quo.

Taken in that light, a dimmer view emerges of the President's laissez faire attitude toward the previous 300,000 Illegals eluding their deportation orders: there really isn't much about enforcing our immigration laws that interests him.

We end up back with economics.

But we start with sovereignty. We have a finite number of immigration slots in this country, and demand for them is high. We, as a nation, have the absolute authority and a moral obligation to determine which immigration candidates are most suitable for admission, and which aren't, and our standards for admission ought to be a little higher than a resolute willingness to violate our laws on a daily basis.

Yet that is the standard that President Bush is applying to the Illegals at whom he is directing his Amnesty proposal.