Help fight the illegal immigration

[Sun tzu]

No abortion after the heart starts beating?

I fail to see why the existence or non-existence of a heartbeat would make it more or less unethical to abort. A heartbeat may be used as the legal, technical definition of "alive", but it has no special ethical meaning.
As opposed to brain activity.

[TMLutas]

I'd agree with you, TM, but this could only be an improvement in that department. Euthanasia is close to being as badly handled as abortion. As it is, there are many, many documented cases in which the patients have full brain waves, but the hospital just decides that they won't pay for it, so they pull the feeding tube and let them STARVE TO DEATH.

While I applaud your forethought in the matter (and really, I do, because far too few people actually look at widespread applicability of such things), that's a slippery slope that we've already slid all the way to the bottom and are mucking around in the mudpit.

And for once, RH, I think we're in agreement. I think that's a very agreeable solution. I would tend to advocate conception-based reasoning, but I think that's a workable compromise. (And of course, there are always exceptions for the weird medical cases where it just can't work.)

Not all hospitals do what you describe. We have not all slid down to the mudpit on this one and I think that it's worth being particular about the start and end of "who" as opposed to "what" is being killed.

A great deal of the problem is that these cases are being treated in $2k-10k per day beds. A proper moral world would move them out to something like hospice to get ordinary care (food, water, etc) but not the extraordinary stuff that current modern medicine seems hard wired to tack on. If it were $200 to care for somebody instead of $2000, we wouldn't be having a lot of these conversations.

[Luna_Northcat]

No abortion after the heart starts beating?

I fail to see why the existence or non-existence of a heartbeat would make it more or less unethical to abort. A heartbeat may be used as the legal, technical definition of "alive", but it has no special ethical meaning.
As opposed to brain activity.

Problem with heartbeat as an indicator is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or function of any sort of central nervous system. The heartbeat arises in the myocardial cells themselves -- as soon as the cells mature, they develop an action potential through an ion gradient, and the ion gradient causes the proteins actin and myosin to change shape, so that the cell "beats". And as soon as two myocardial cells touch, or where one divides into two and the cell membrane matures, some of the membrane proteins knit together and establish gap junctions, so that ions flow from one cell to the next and they establish a peristaltic, wave-like beat. But all this is purely chemical.

Hearts are sensitive to neurotransmitters, often responding by speeding up or slowing down, but that is the extent of central nervous system influence. A completely anencephalic infant, without even a brain stem, will often have a completely normal heart and heartbeat, even though the poor thing will die as soon as breathing becomes an issue. Brain-dead people who have to have a machine breathe for them will still often have a fully normal heartbeat. Heart cells cultured in a petri dish will form a small, beating sheet (and let me tell you, this is really, seriously freaky to see, especially if you have a tray of them!). A heart removed entirely from a body will continue to beat, as long as it is in a nutrient bath with an appropriate level of ions (and this is quite disturbing to watch as well....). But anyway, absence of heartbeat was removed as an indicator of death I think over 20 years ago, in favor of the brain-death definition.

[Detrius]

...and here comes the connection between illegal immigration and abortion.

[Axelgear]

I know I have no place in this discussion really, seeing how I live in Canada an' all, but I feel I must say something here... I'll state my views in simple, concise sentences because I have a tendency to ramble and contradict myself if I get long winded so... Here it is:

-I'm against barring Mexican Immigration, illegal or otherwise
-I'm Pro-Choice

Now, I shall state my reasons WHY I am for these things. Let us start with against barring immigration. The number one reason? I'm an immigrant. No, I'm not from Mexico, because if I was I'd have citizenship by now. Right now, I'm about 10 and a half years into my residence in Canada, and I'm only a Landed Immigrant. That's the mid-line between Alien and Citizen, for those of you who are unaware from the lingo, and I've gone this route entirely legally, which has been constantly filled with bumps and issues because of the bureaucracy involved. Originally, I'm from England, and I came to Canada following my fathers business, but you can tell that I obviously like this country enough to stay here for ten years. However, the immigration process is so slow it's painful, and were it not for some very helpful relatives, we, by which I mean myself and my family, would not have been able to afford to stay here thanks to some horrendous legal maneuvers by my father (I'm 16 and still a dependent, so I've felt every wave). So, the truth is, I can clearly see both why people go to other countries and why they do it illegally: It's easier and it leads to a better life. I came from England, a good country, but the cost of living there is horrendous, and the immigration process is terribly slow as mentioned above, so why would someone want to do it legally? The fact is, America was founded quite litterally with Puritans fleeing a nation where the upper class oppressed those beneath them, and unless you've got red skin, you're descended from immigrants yourselves. You were BORN into a nation where you are GIVEN the breaks, and admittently so was I, but with the lovely twists of fate my parents divorce has brought to me, I've had to go through an arduous process to be come a citizen in a new country. If it was hard for me to become a citizen in a country where the customs are similar to those of where I came from and I had to do it legally, you can imagine what it must be like for people coming from a nation where they have nothing, are hunted because they entered the country, and have trouble blending into the nation. Give them a break, because even when they get here, the only role they seem to be able to fill in society is either draining or taking the jobs no-one else wants. This was in fact the role of most Europeans during the Industrial Revolution when they came over from their nations (Italians formed the Mafia because of the squalor-filled conditions, trying to get a better life), and your ancestors went through it at one time. Does it not seem hypocritical to blame these people seeking better lives when you're reaping the benefits of someone elses suffering already?

...I hope that made sense...

Now onto Abortion. I hope those of you who want to make this argument have read their way through statistics and its benefits to society. Abortion is actually probably the reason you can sleep safely at night, and I hope you realize that. You see, not too long ago, America was facing an unprecedented Crime Wave. Crime rose to an intense high right up until just about the time after Roe versus Wade. You see, about 5 years after Roe vs Wade, this rate didn't just STOP, but it dropped dramatically, and is still falling (Though is now starting to plateau). Many people attributed this to increased numbers of police, better strategies, job initiatives, etc. But their contribution was minimal, as they started to fall shortly before these things were brought into place. Unless this involved time travelling, I believe the police weren't too responsible for this. Additional proof can be found that the races that had the largest and earliest decreases were those that legalized abortion shortly before Roe vs Wade. The reason Abortion causes a decrease in crime? Because parents who want children will be better parents, and parents that don't shun the child and can't care for them adequately. Disaffected children, of course, grow up to be the most likely criminals, and thus these children are the ones who are will cause problems in life later. When these children are not born thanks to Abortion, fewer and fewer criminals are added to the equation. If you wish to rebutt these statistics, I look forward to it though. If you need references, I have two reputable economnicists to quote, and if you wish, please look up their book "Freakonomics". It's a good read, and rather funny. And oh yes, I believe women have a right to choose whether to have a child, at least until the child is alive themself, at which point the childs rights come into effect.

So... Yes. I hope I've not made any enemies now. Pleasant days to you all.

[RHJunior]

ONE: they're not "immigrants." They're trespassers. They are BREAKING THE LAW. If they cannot abide by that simplest of laws---<I>get permission before you come in</i>-- they are unfit to be in America.
Illegals are parasitizing on America, bleeding money from our country into Mexico, evading taxation, putting a massive burden our healthcare and welfare systems, corrupting our electoral process, and injecting a bloody influx of crime into our nation--- everything from hit-and-run drivers to drugrunners and rapists pour over our southern border every day, unchecked, unstopped.
Any other nation, they come in through the front door. Even the Cubans who arrive on driftwood rafts come here in legal compliance--- seeking to gain advantage of the legal sanctuary promised by our government to any Cuban who sets foot on American soil. The Mexicans do not. They seek to <I>evade</i> the law at every turn.
SEND. THEM. BACK.
With a bootprint on their pants as mandatory, and a BULLET in their backside when necessary.

TWO: Trying to talk up the "social benefits" of murdering babies is depraved and sick. It's a perfect picture of the moral vacuum in people's souls: They would happily advocate the ritual dismemberment of unborn babies, or the siphoning of their brains out of their skulls, just to ease up on "the crime problem"---- <I>but God save your soul if you DARE to suggest punishing the actual criminals instead.</i> They'll fight to save the rapist's life, but advocate the summary execution of the rapist's innocent child.

There have been one or two other empires that advocated eliminating "useless eaters." We fought a world war against one of them, and a cold war against the other. You'd think we'd stay consistent.


"IT keeps people from having children they don't want!" Yes, <I>their willingness to kill their own baby</i> is an improvement of their moral fibre, I'm sure.

Are there not adoption agencies in every state of the Union? Does not even the rotted socialist wasteland of Canada have adoption agencies? Is there not a waiting list <I>millions of names long</i> of married couples who are willing to adopt, of even full families with several children willing to do the same? Of people who take in children who are blind, lame, retarded, grievously crippled, terminally ill?

I don't particularly want YOU in my life. Does that give me permission to stab you in the base of your skull with an icepick?

"Unwanted Children" is a myth. And the sanctity of human life is not measured by how much people are "wanted." <I>You do not measure whether or not to save a life based on their utility to another person.</i>


Maybe if morally worthless people weren't given the "easy out" of murdering babies they don't personally want, you'd see fewer of them out there F##king like retarded monkeys in the first place.

The same moralists, the same GOD who said "thou shalt not kill" also said "thou shalt not commit adultery." SHAZAM, there's your solution to BOTH problems in a nutshell.

FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS, ISN'T IT?

[Axelgear]

As it is 4:31 in the morning, I'm afraid my answer won't be fantastic so bare with me here...

im‧mi‧grant  /ˈɪmɪgrənt/ Pronunciation[im-i-gruhnt]
–noun
1. a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.
2. an organism found in a new habitat.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to immigrants and immigration: a department for immigrant affairs.
4. immigrating.

The first definition doesn't state whether it's legal or not. Immigrant merely means a person who moves from one country to another to seek residence there. You may want to pretty up your argument with words that dehumanize these people, that takes the face off them, but these are PEOPLE. Cubans flee from their country for much the same reasons and are only extended asylum because Cuba is a communist nation. It's actually a very similar situation to what caused the Hutu-Tutsi Conflict in Africa that led to that genocidal conflict in Rwanda. I should also point out, again, that YOU are most likely an immigrant, and anyone who has ancestors stretching back more than 200 years actually came here just as the Mexicans did: Coming to America and getting a poor job to support their family. Oftentimes, they didn't even get processed, they just came here. That's right. Most likely the oldest residents in America were what is defined today as illegal immigrants. Funny how that works in retrospect isn't it? Should we back-work all immigrants now? Find those who're descended from immigrants that didn't go through the processing and kick them out? Because if that's the truth, there's a good deal of certainty your sweet land of liberty would fade over the horizon line for you.

Oh yes, another thing, you said they should enter legally... You DO know how hard it is for Mexicans to enter legally, right? You need several thousand dollars in a bank account to apply for immigrant status so you can provde you will not be a drain in society. That is more money than most Mexicans EVER see in their lives. You are asking them to do the impossible. The options are being destitute in America, where they can give their children a better chance, or they have the option of being destitute in Mexico, where their kids will grow up in slums and probably either end up dead, forced into crime, or in the same boat as their parents. You may want to consider that not every Mexican that comes over the border is a lazy, non-working idiot rapist or thief. About 99% of these people are hard workers, often parents, who want to try and earn money so they can escape poverty and get into a better life. These people do not take jobs, they work as the bottom of the food-chain, working at places like McDonalds, they work as Janitors, they work in Slaughterhouses, Chemical Plants... Quite often in unsafe conditions because, after all, who are they going to complain to? You? You'd throw them out. Maybe you should put a face on these people and understand their problems, and actually wonder just why they're coming to your country where they know they're going to live in squalor, hm? If the action is so counter-productive, why do it?

And as for Abortion, not too much to say here. It's not murder if it's before a certain point, because the baby is not alive yet, and hence has not been given a soul by God yet. It is, at this point, just a bundle of cells that focus on reproducing themselves. A tumor basically. So unless we're denying Cancer Patients treatment, we have an issue. If you feel killing mindless tissue harms a soul, does that mean I break off a piece of yours if I accidentally cut off your arm? It's essentially the same argument. Maybe you should actually take a moment to think of when the soul enters the body, and if it's at conception, what about babies that never become alive? Stillborn children have no soul because they were never alive, but they developed, didn't they? Could it be that the formation of the body and the entry of the soul are two entirely different things?

Now to counter a few arguments real quick:

They'll fight to save the rapist's life, but advocate the summary execution of the rapist's innocent child.

Well, the rapist is the person, the "child" is not a child yet. Once brain activity begins, it's a child. Until then, it is essentially a tumor. As to the rapist, he deserves whatever comes to him. I'm no Democrat. I find it harder and harder to see any centrist party left in the world, but we do alright in Canada. But anyway, as I was saying, the rapist deserves whatever comes to him. I have no respect for criminals, and though I will add leniance for things like street-kids who steal food so they can eat, Rape is a crime I cannot abide by. It is a crime with a 100% certainty (Or as close as is possible) of who committed it thanks to DNA identification, and as such I think it's one of the rare few things where you can have the death penalty.

There have been one or two other empires that advocated eliminating "useless eaters." We fought a world war against one of them, and a cold war against the other. You'd think we'd stay consistent.

But were not they living, breathing people who were walking around and that had souls? These were people who were born, not an unliving (On the barrier of life and death) fetus. And by the way, you fought in World War II and the Cold War? Can you send me pictures of your servicemans medal please? How about your rank stripes? Oh, that's right, you didn't fight in either. World War II was fought for by people who were willing to die to defend their country and the people in it AND their freedoms. You have to recognize their rights and choices, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I will recognize your opposition to my opinions but you have no right to impose yours on mine. That was the whole point of your nation forming I believe. I suggest that if you oppose Abortions, maybe you should just provide information on alternatives and why you think it is amoral. That way, your views are equally represented, and those that want abortions can get them.

And by the way, I suggest not bringing up the Cold War. America doesn't have a shining record from that. Wasn't the whole reason America went into Iraq to get WMD's from Saddam Hussein that your nation sold him in the first place? Osama Bin Laden was once a friend of the US as well, and he was given money and weapons by the US to fight off Russia in Afghanistan and Khazakistan. Soooo, it's really not a good war to mention

Are there not adoption agencies in every state of the Union? Does not even the rotted socialist wasteland of Canada have adoption agencies? Is there not a waiting list millions of names long of married couples who are willing to adopt, of even full families with several children willing to do the same? Of people who take in children who are blind, lame, retarded, grievously crippled, terminally ill?

I'd thank you to not insult my country, I've not insulted yours. And Socialism is not a bad thing. America was founded on the ideals of Democratic Socialism, and your Senate (Not Congress, the Senate) is a remnant of this time. It exists to ensure every state has an equal voice in the end, regardless of proportional representation. But that's not the issue here so back on track. Adoption agencies, as any child psychologist can tell you, are woefully underfunded, of poor quality, and terribly debilitating on a childs psyche. Those that grow up there are usually bitter people, and many turn to crime, as I stated in the Unwanted Child thing. I'd say your idea could work if more money was placed in social programs to help parentless children, but then again, I don't see you supporting such things.

I don't particularly want YOU in my life. Does that give me permission to stab you in the base of your skull with an icepick?

"Unwanted Children" is a myth. And the sanctity of human life is not measured by how much people are "wanted." You do not measure whether or not to save a life based on their utility to another person.

Well, you do realize I'm not a fetus, right? Otherwise my ability to type here sorta invalidates my argument. I don't see how a collection of cells with the potential to become a person is the same thing as a fully grown human. Otherwise, wouldn't that mean that castrating a man or removing a womans ovaries is the same as killing thousands? I believe it is in line with your logic, as both organs contain the potential for life, do they not?

And Unwanted Children are not a myth. They are children that parents do not want. Who said this is a comparison with another person or their use? It's merely that these children are not wanted by their parents which lead them into becoming wastelands of people. By your sense, would not letting a child grow into a life of sin and Godlessness lead to them going to hell? Isn't that a bit cruel?

Maybe if morally worthless people weren't given the "easy out" of murdering babies they don't personally want, you'd see fewer of them out there F##king like retarded monkeys in the first place.

The same moralists, the same GOD who said "thou shalt not kill" also said "thou shalt not commit adultery." SHAZAM, there's your solution to BOTH problems in a nutshell.

I find it funny you say that, but have you been through the process of having and raising a child before you yourself have a high-education degree, you aren't married, and you don't have a house? I'm pretty certain that if your situation was changed, you'd change your words pretty fast. You're only given your pedestal to sit on but by the Grace of God.

And by the way, Adultery means you shouldn't have intercourse with a person that isn't your spouse when you're married. It's so funny that the same people who preached Thou Shalt Not Kill also marched on Jerusalem and killed every Arab in the area that didn't agree to work for them. Religious texts only work if people follow all things. Jesus Himself did not judge others; He was a kind man, who went around telling of His word and letting those interested come to Him. He did not go to others and tell them to change their ways, but merely went to help them and let them listen if they chose to.

[RHJunior]

1) I don't give a crap how difficult it is to enter this country, any more than I give a crap how difficult it is to enter my HOUSE without my permission.

2)cri-mi-nal: Noun. Someone who breaks the law.

3)You don't think abortion is murder. I say that even if I wasn't certain it was, I would still oppose it on the grounds that <I>If you can't be sure, you don't take that chance.</i>

4)98% of Saddam's military arsenal was from France, Germany and Russia.
The remaining 2% came from everyone else on the map. America's
"contribution" to Saddam was less than a percent, and did NOT consist of WMDs.
Furthermore, so what? Prior to WWI and WII, America engaged in trade with Germany-- as did every other nation, many of them right up to WWII. The entire world rubbed shoulders at the Olympics with Hitler. Does that negate the fact that we united and kicked his butt off the map shortly thereafter?

"People who once accused America of propping up tyrants are now sputtering in bilious fury because she deposed one...."

5) As to the Cold War: Tell me, do you speak Russian? No? You're welcome. Now shut up.

6) You may not be a fetus.... but you'd better realize this, and quickly: someone out there, for whatever reason, regards you as being as subhuman as you regard the unborn, and would happily justify killing you on grounds of "utilitarian ethics."
We're already on the slippery slope: they've already stepped up from killing unborn babies for the crime of being inconvenient, to covertly yanking the plug on the bedridden and the handicapped--- to openly denying health care to newborns, in spite of the tearful pleading of the child's parents, on the grounds of "quality of life."
Tomorrow, it may very well be you that is regarded as a "useless eater." Hope you don't have any expensive prescriptions.

7)Unwanted children are a myth. There is not a child anywhere for whom there is not a parent willing to take them in. And "unwanted" or not, the sanctity of MY life is not to be measured by YOUR personal desires.

8)Petulant jabs at my military service or lack thereof. How cute. Aren't you special.

9)The ancient Hebrews conquered the holy land by eradicating several violent, bloody nations that were there already. Those destroyed peoples were depraved beyond imagining. They were brutal, raiding slaughterers who engaged in human sacrifice to Baal and other demonic gods,and were an unholy terror to all the peoples around them. Their loss goes unmourned save by the ignorant.

10)Jesus called people hypocrites and "whited walls" straight to their faces, and once drove the moneylenders out of the temple with a whip. He openly stated that he brought not peace, but a sword, and that His words would set father against son, brother against brother. And His warnings to those who would not heed His words were terrible.
He did not come into the world to condemn the world.... but neither did He come into the world to overthrow God's Law, nor to give you a free pass to do as you please. He SURE as blazes didn't come into the world to put a stamp of approval on the act of hacking a baby out of its womb.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea..."

[Axelgear]

1. Things only change when people DO care RH. Apathy, which I admit I've got in abundance, is a tool of destruction. However, I think I've produced a solution to the immigration thing on another post of the same topic, so go read that and tell me what you think. It may solve everyones issues.

2. I think the abortion issue on "Whether it is or isn't" has reached a point of agreeing to disagree.

3. As to the Cold War, I don't believe America ever attacked Russia. America was capable of nuclear bombardment of Russia, yes, but they were capable of the same. America may have opposed Russian interests, but I don't believe those small nations west of Russia it absorbed were exactly so thankful. Do they speak Russian? Whatta ya know...

4. Unwanted Children are not a myth or there wouldn't be so many young girls abandoned in China thanks to the One Child law. Believe it or not, parents are not so universally caring as you and I were lucky to have.

5. That Babylon remark was NOT about Jerusalems formation. That was about how people should realize that some things in the Bible don't have any application anymore. Are women allowed to speak in your church? That's not how it used to be, but we realized it's an old and no longer necessary rule.

6. Yes, Jesus was pretty active in His beliefs. In fact, I have to say the chasing of the Moneychangers from the temple is one of the most wonderful things I've ever heard of. However it should be noted that He only fought them off because the people in the temple were suffering because of it and they wanted freedom. And let us not forget that those He called hypocrits were people that met with Him or that just happened to be near where He was at the time. He did not impose His word on others, however, and merely told them what He wanted and let them decide whether to act on it or not. Well, except for the moneychangers, but that was reversing an act of suffering already in progress.

[RHJunior]

No, he ran them off because they were committing a DESECRATION.

[TMLutas]

1) I don't give a crap how difficult it is to enter this country, any more than I give a crap how difficult it is to enter my HOUSE without my permission.

Things are a bit more complicated than that. The real system is this. In their house, their country, bad people have, for a long time, made things bad. Some of those people fled, either for direct political reasons or indirectly, because the bad politics messed up the economics enough to just want to migrate for the money. Many of those people came here, legally. The US, for its own reasons, prevents these immigrants and their descendants from gathering together and liberating their country. We can get into the details of why and how if you like but that's the short version.

Well, more and more people want to head here where it's good because the repressive forces "over there" are making it miserable and we play a part in supporting those repressive forces. That's why you had GWB apologizing for a half century of US support for arab/muslim dictatorship a couple of years ago.

So you can pretend that illegal immigration is some isolated phenomenon but it's not. It's a consequence in part of our actively working to stop liberation movements from being organized to overthrow tyrannies. Our foreign policy has helped both liberate and enslave and when the slaves get out, many come here. Can't you see the moral obligation we have to these people?

[RHJunior]

Irrelevant.

REAL refugees come to the front door and ASK for sanctuary when they arrive. They don't sneak in the back door and skulk around for years on end.

Every criminal who breaks my window and crawls inside my house in the dead of night has a sob story. They're still trespassers, they're still committing a crime, they're still gonna get their HEADS blown off if I come around a corner with my shotgun in hand and spot them skulking around my house in the dark.

This is America, not a free-for-all Happy Handout Flophouse International. You want in, you need in, you knock on the front door and ask permission. If we say no, TOUGH. If you try to sneak in, ESPECIALLY when we're at war, we are fully within our rights to shoot you and leave you for the buzzards... and we're half a hair from shooting the collaborators and sympathizers on this side of the fence in the arse and kicking them over the border to join you.

Now get out there and mow your OWN dang lawn, you lazy California slobs.

[Axelgear]

Refugee status is defined by the Convention on the Status and Treatment of Refugees as:

"A person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution."

This is what the United States has agreed to define it as. Therefore, anyone who is not subject to discrimination of some sort cannot claim Refugee status. Short of open warfare, you can't use anything as a reason for refugee status. That means that these people have NO legal route into America, because the standard legal process will turn them away due to lack of funds. Here's the Land of the Free and the home of the Catch 22. America was founded as a land of immigrants, where anyone (ESPECIALLY poor Irish and Italian people fleeing poor conditions in their homelands) can supposedly come and take up residence for a better tommorow. Long-nationalized Americans at one time all most likely had ancestors in this situation, and it is hypocritical to decide others can't have the same opportunity just because of a percieved inconvenience.

And by the way, if these Mexicans are so lazy, why is it the INS constantly has to go into factories exploiting Mexicans for cheap manual labour and try and deport the workers? If you watch the news, you may have heard of 700 Mexicans being found working in a Poultry-Processing Plant, all illegally and all below minimum wage. These people then fled or were deported (Where they will undoubtedly be jumping the fence again in a couple of weeks. I wonder if they have to get their hand stamped...), but either way, they have been replaced, not by the hard-working common American, but by convicts and homeless people. People who, surprise surprise, can be blackmailed. They lack unions, and the company can say "Don't wanna work 16 hour days? Well, I guess it's back to prison/the street for you!" Maybe you should realize companies WANT Mexicans to do the jobs the common American won't, and that most people don't realize that the alternative to these people isn't exactly too nice.

Mexicans want to be Americans as much as you. They just weren't given the right, they have to fight for it. Most are not saints, and most are not criminals. Most are just people trying to find a better place to live.

If you try to sneak in, ESPECIALLY when we're at war, we are fully within our rights to shoot you and leave you for the buzzards... and we're half a hair from shooting the collaborators and sympathizers on this side of the fence in the arse and kicking them over the border to join you.

Uh huh... You're not within your rights to shoot at all unless they are an immediate threat to your personal safety (I.E. Brandishing a weapon and threatening to kill you). You're not a member of the Armed Forces, you're not a Police Officer, and you have recieved no governmental order to shoot on sight. If you shoot them, you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As to the collaberators, if they're US Citizens, you can't deport them, and if you try to, they can go to any US Consulate and will be returned to the United States shortly, using your tax dollars I may add. Maybe you should realize that this is an impossible battle to fight, but not an unsolvable problem. Chinese people managed to come to Canada in the 1800's despite the best efforts of the Government (People didn't like them that much), until eventually, they realized it was an impossible fight, changed the law to be more fair and equittable, and now Chinese immigrants from then to today are proud members of our national community. When people are not subjected to harsh and/or unfair law, they generally make a good contribution to society. Maybe America could take a lesson from it's bigger brother? (Because we are larger and twin nations)

[BoKiana]

I won't argue any of your points, only make a few comments, which will probably sound short. Considering I'm near dead asleep right now, bare with me, I'm not thinking as clearly as I could.

Let us start with against barring immigration. The number one reason? I'm an immigrant. Right now, I'm about 10 and a half years into my residence in Canada, and I'm only a Landed Immigrant. That's the mid-line between Alien and Citizen, which has been constantly filled with bumps and issues because of the bureaucracy involved. However, the immigration process is so slow it's painful. So, the truth is, I can clearly see both why people go to other countries and why they do it illegally: It's easier and it leads to a better life.

This is exactly why I would want robbing banks to be legal. As long as I'm not hurting anyone, where's the harm? Making a living is a long, tedious and difficult venture, filled with bumps, curves and drop-offs that can't be seen. Since making a living is a slow and painful process, taking money should be allowed, since me taking it from the bank by force is illegal, and cashing a check is legal, and many people need money to survive, those who chose the illegal direction shouldn't be held accountable for their "Undocumented Cash Withdrawal" as I'd like to call it (taking the UN's word of "Undocumented Immigrant" since borders don't exist in their vocabulary).

I know you'll reply to that explaining that one illegal act isn't the same as one other illegal act, and that the hardships of one person trying to make a living is not the same as another's attempt at making a living (or some variation of that), but again, I'm dead tired here and not thinking with most of my brain, so bare with me.

I came from England, a good country, but the cost of living there is horrendous, and the immigration process is terribly slow as mentioned above, so why would someone want to do it legally?

That just further builds my idea of making robing banks a legal venture.

The fact is, America was founded quite litterally with Puritans fleeing a nation where the upper class oppressed those beneath them, and unless you've got red skin, you're descended from immigrants yourselves. You were BORN into a nation where you are GIVEN the breaks, and admittently so was I, but with the lovely twists of fate my parents divorce has brought to me, I've had to go through an arduous process to be come a citizen in a new country.

Actually, I'm Eskimo. My mom is an immigrant in a way. Back when the US bought Alaska, she was told she had to learn all kinds of things just to be allowed to continue living where she was, since it was now part of the US and she was allowed to take the tests to be a legal immigrant (and eventually, gain citizenship).

No breaks were given to her, nor was the tests easy. Still, to stay with her mother (who married a 'white man' after grandpa died) she took those tests and passed them to 'earn' her citizenship. It never occurred to her to break the law and ignore it and sneak into the US.

Again, it goes back to my robbing the bank issue.

If it was hard for me to become a citizen in a country where the customs are similar to those of where I came from and I had to do it legally, you can imagine what it must be like for people coming from a nation where they have nothing, are hunted because they entered the country, and have trouble blending into the nation.

My mom and grandma actually had nothing back in Alaska. And my mom and grandma had trouble blending into society as well. Tensions were still high from WWII (this taking place in the 1950's, just after Alaska became a state), and they were regularly attacked by white men for being "gooks, chinks, Japs" and any other Japanese derogatory phrase you could think up, since we Eskimo look so much like a person from the orient. They were even targeted by local KKK Chapter to be burned at the steak for not being white, and step-grandpa to be beheaded afterwards for being a traitor to his race.

Despite all this, none of them wanted to break the laws to do what they came to the US for, to live (after grandma re-married, step-grandpa moved from Alaska to Ohio)

Give them a break, because even when they get here, the only role they seem to be able to fill in society is either draining or taking the jobs no-one else wants. This was in fact the role of most Europeans during the Industrial Revolution when they came over from their nations (Italians formed the Mafia because of the squalor-filled conditions, trying to get a better life), and your ancestors went through it at one time. Does it not seem hypocritical to blame these people seeking better lives when you're reaping the benefits of someone elses suffering already?

Yes, because those breaking the law, like the Mafia, need to be given a full pardon and handout from the government because they could break the law and only wanted a better life from it. Once again, that goes right back to my request to being allowed to rob banks legally.

But you're also saying that all the immigrants did thing illegally once they got here, which isn't true. Not all Italian immigrants joined the mafia, nor were all Italian immigrants illegal. You seem to be trying to say that all immigrants were illegal immigrants, and therefore hypocritical. Just the thought of that is incredible.

Uh huh... You're not within your rights to shoot at all unless they are an immediate threat to your personal safety (I.E. Brandishing a weapon and threatening to kill you). You're not a member of the Armed Forces, you're not a Police Officer, and you have recieved no governmental order to shoot on sight. If you shoot them, you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Actually, here in the US, there are laws that state that if someone has broken into your home, you are free to shoot to kill no matter the armed state of the guy breaking in. This was done (in many states, like here in Georgia) because buglers were being shot by a homeowner when they pulled a knife or gun, then sued the homeowner for assault with intent. After several buglers won in court, numerous states said that was wrong and put in laws that protect homeowners from buglers. Thus the new laws.

Once again, I haven't slept in too long, and my brain isn't helping me think everything through except to make these broad and general details that I've put here.

I'm going to bed. G'night.

[Axelgear]

I'll make this short and sweet:

-Robbing banks, not a victimless crime that you HAVE to do, but in the event that you are forced to, Courts even go so far as to grant leniency on this in such situations.

-Your grandparents were established, and had the funds to enter legally. Now, let us take away their money, their home, and everything they had, and make it so they can only speak Inuktiktuk and not English. Then have them give it a go. Should be easy, right?

-Italians referred to an all-Italian group, not all Italians. I assumed that was understood, but now it's cleared up. The point still stands though. These people were worked to the bone no matter what they did, and I think anyone today would've done the same thing.

-The statement was in reference to killing people who enter the country, not the home. I should be more specific in future.

[Deckard Canine]

Actually, here in the US, there are laws that state that if someone has broken into your home, you are free to shoot to kill no matter the armed state of the guy breaking in. This was done (in many states, like here in Georgia) because buglers were being shot by a homeowner when they pulled a knife or gun, then sued the homeowner for assault with intent. After several buglers won in court, numerous states said that was wrong and put in laws that protect homeowners from buglers. Thus the new laws.

Those darn buglers, blowing their horns in other people's homes. (Yes, I know, you were tired.)

in the event that you are forced to

There's the rub. People come to the U.S. to seek a better life, but just how little hope is there for an adequate living in their homeland?

[BoKiana]

I'll make this short and sweet:

-Robbing banks, not a victimless crime that you HAVE to do, but in the event that you are forced to, Courts even go so far as to grant leniency on this in such situations.

So you agree with what I said?

-Your grandparents were established, and had the funds to enter legally. Now, let us take away their money, their home, and everything they had, and make it so they can only speak Inuktiktuk and not English. Then have them give it a go. Should be easy, right?

Actually, they had no money. Grandpa was just out of the army, having retired from service after surviving the war, and didn't have a home or any money for himself, and Grandma and mom had nothing save the clothes on their back. The US government, in its infinite wisdom, require taxes from the people, and when you simply fish to eat and nothing else, there's no money to be given. And back then, even people who didn't have anything needed to pay, because some white man in a suit said that the US bought our land and they own it now. Also, grandma didn't know English for a very long time. It took her second daughter, who was born in Ohio to teach Grandma how to read, write and speak while my aunt went to school. My mother was little different, except she knew a little more English than grandma. Just enough for her to function while in school.

Again, despite this, they didn't even think of breaking the rules.

Anymore hurdles you want to think up to justify breaking the law?

-Italians referred to an all-Italian group, not all Italians. I assumed that was understood, but now it's cleared up. The point still stands though. These people were worked to the bone no matter what they did, and I think anyone today would've done the same thing.

Breaking the law means you are a criminal. If you break the law, you need to be punished. Just because you're having difficulty doing something does not justify committing a crime. For example, lets look back at my analogy of legally robbing a bank.

Before I was born, My mother robbed a bank. Because she was broke, her son and daughter were starving (as well as herself) and the deadbeat jackass of a husband was taking her paycheck to spend on a girl he was seeing and not leaving anything for food.

And the court wasn't lenient to her, even though it was a first offense, she was starving and her kids were starving. She broke the law, and paid the price. The world isn't a loving Robin Hood-like place that cheers for the little man stealing from the rich to feed the poor. The little man is charged with a crime when he does it, same as anyone else. The hardships you face does not excuse ignorance or complacency of the law.

-The statement was in reference to killing people who enter the country, not the home. I should be more specific in future.

Duly noted. I didn't know from how both the post and your reply was worded. I thought it was in reference to the "man breaking into the home" part.

I have one major question for you. If you are so tired of trying to become a citizen of Canada legally, why do you continue to do it? As you've said yourself, why try it when it's so difficult and still having no true success? Simply ignore the law and do as you will. Since you're a minor, the law should be even more lenient to you and understand your plight, right?

What I'm getting at, is I find it odd that you struggle to do things legally, and preach about making the illegal legal, saying that the legal path is too difficult and people won't/can't do it, while doing it yourself despite the difficulty. If you and your father can do it, then others can too, or at least IMO. I say this because my family had hardships far beyond what you probably faced (I do not know of your family's plight, and this is an assumption, my apologizes to you if you have had difficulties similar to my own family. My family faced constant starvation if the hunt was unsuccessful or if storms hit hard. There was nothing in the way of help; from either the Russian government who 'owned' our land, or the US government who bought it later on. Nothing changed from our perspective, it was just a different face and a different language telling us who taxes need to be payed to.) and did it all without breaking the law or avoiding the legal procedure to become citizens.

[Jwrebholz]

-I'm against barring Mexican Immigration, illegal or otherwise
-I'm Pro-Choice

So you're OK with it if I break into your house, lounge around on your couch for a while and raid your fridge?

America is our home. You want to live in this home, you play by our rules or you'll be shown the door. Then tossed through it.

[Calbeck]

You may want to pretty up your argument with words that dehumanize these people, that takes the face off them, but these are PEOPLE.

So was Al Capone, and he busted people's kneecaps with a baseball bat. Many of these people are criminals of the same ilk, jumping the border to break the laws of the US because they make more money than by breaking the laws of Mexico. What's your point?

It's actually a very similar situation to what caused the Hutu-Tutsi Conflict in Africa that led to that genocidal conflict in Rwanda.

Except, of course, that it isn't similar at all. Or are you about to suggest that the illegal alien population of the US is ready and raring to start murdering any non-Hispanic man, woman or child they can get their hands on?

I should also point out, again, that YOU are most likely an immigrant

Yeah, and my family came here LEGALLY, thank you.

Most likely the oldest residents in America were what is defined today as illegal immigrants.

Not likely. As far back as the Civil War --- that's 1861 - 1865, in case you didn't know, making anyone from 1860 over 145 years old if they made it to the modern day --- we were tracking and requiring approval of immigration. Germans and Irish coming to this country often did so in exchange for military service, resulting in units like the "Irish Brigade".

Fact is, if you wanted to come to America in those days you either came via ship or you came via Mexico --- and most of the West was made up of Territories in those days with very different immigration laws pertaining to them. It was perfectly legal back then to cross the border, and even stay permanently, without a check-in.

Oh yes, another thing, you said they should enter legally... You DO know how hard it is for Mexicans to enter legally, right? You need several thousand dollars in a bank account to apply for immigrant status so you can provde you will not be a drain in society.

My friend from Iceland just won the Green Card Lottery. He's going to be one of 50,000 people allowed to immigrate from Europe. HE has to meet the same standards.

For that matter, if I want to emigrate to Australia, I have to have a college degree. Is Australia being unfair to Mexicans who want to emigrate there but can't afford the expense of going to college?

That is more money than most Mexicans EVER see in their lives.

And yet somehow they manage to provide it to the coyotes who smuggle them across the border.

And by the way, I suggest not bringing up the Cold War. America doesn't have a shining record from that. Wasn't the whole reason America went into Iraq to get WMD's from Saddam Hussein that your nation sold him in the first place?

1) Sorry, but you're misinformed. Germany and Russia sold Iraq the bulk of its WMD capability, not the US, to include actual weapons stocks. You can also point fingers at France, China, and even Britain, each of whom contributed more to Iraq's WMD programs than did the US. In fact, the primary US contribution was computers, used in Iraq's nuclear weapons program, of which none were ever actually produced.

2) Iraq wasn't even PART of the Cold War. Afghanistan was, but the US and USSR never tussled in any way over Iraq.

Osama Bin Laden was once a friend of the US as well

Right, just like Soviet Russia was once a friend of the US during World War II, for the same reason of fighting a common enemy.

and he was given money and weapons by the US

Actually, no. Bin Laden used his own fortune to fund his own band, which even then he called "Al Qaeda" (The Network). He did purchase weapons from the US, but he also purchased from Britain, France, and Russia --- in fact, pretty much anyone he could buy from. What he and his people mostly got from the US was training in guerilla warfare. Note that such training does not include flying airliners into civilian buildings.

Adoption agencies, as any child psychologist can tell you, are woefully underfunded, of poor quality, and terribly debilitating on a childs psyche.

I was adopted, AND I grew up in the California group home system after my adoptive parents divorced. I had a rotten childhood, filled with beatings and mental anguish and even rape.

And guess what? I'm glad I'm HERE to remember these things that happened to me. I'm glad to be ALIVE. That wouldn't be the case if my parents had "taken pity on me" and had an abortion.

[BoKiana]

*all of Calbeck's post*

Well said my friend. But maybe you need a few minutes to calm down? We could hit a shooting range or clear meadow with a machine gun, bazooka and plenty of cans?

I can understand he touched on a tender spot on your life, much like me and immigration from my family, just not quite as personal to me as your adoption is to you.

But still, maybe we both should relax with some time down at the range. Goodness knows I have a shiny new Beretta .45 locked in my closet that needs breaking in.