<p>
[quote]
As they are citizens of Mexico, you shouldn't expect to insult their homeland and not get a response of high dudgeon.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OKAY, please tell me where in my posts I dissed the citizens of Mexico.</p>
<p>What destination the deportation occurs to is impertinent. I'm talking about rights analysis (and drawing moral analogies), not whether the place you're deported to is pleasant or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What does your question have to do with what I have said?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Everything, because it was to probe your ideas about jurisprudence. Please answer the question, because it is to lead to another question. (You know, like any cross-X session...) </p>
<p>Firstly, can you confirm you do not believe there cannot be a law (any law) so immediately vile to the population in its apparent injustice and infelicities that common sense tells a people to disobey it? That is, no matter what the law says or prescribes, no matter who it impacts, no matter its scope, no matter the possible threats to liberty it may create, each and every law has been passed and will be passed in the future must be invariably obeyed, to maintain your idea of law and order?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"If you didn't have laws, you'd have bloody anarchy."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anarchist</a> law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>(<em>not</em> an oxymoron)</p>
<p>Hey look, buddy, Mick Jagger went to the London School of Economics. He's a smart guy. If he says it's an oxymoron, then it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He studied for a degree in accounting and finance, with a minor in physical education, but attended for less than a year and did not graduate, leaving to pursue a musical career.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah .... he didn't graduate. Very smart there.</p>
<p>Mick</a> Jagger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>(I also see you keep dropping your other contentions. Quite interesting...)</p>
<p>"FLVADAD - But those denied citizenship cannot speak for their rights."</p>
<p>What kind of rights are you referring to? Do you mean basic human rights, or the rights of US citizens? </p>
<p>Those who are citizens, as well as those who become citizens, and who agree that the US should have open borders, they can amend the laws. I agree that people from other countries and who are not citizens do not have a say in our government or its laws - nor should they.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The other 99% do not live there on vacation, see the "breathtakingly beautiful" scenery but instead live in poverty in overpopulated, downtrodden areas of Mexico.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. The poverty level is between 13.8 and 40%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those who are citizens, as well as those who become citizens, and who agree that the US should have open borders, they can amend the laws. I agree that people from other countries and who are not citizens do not have a say in our government or its laws - nor should they.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Suppose if the US government had never enacted voter reform such that poorer landless tenant farmers (etc.) still couldn't vote. What should you tell them? Get some land and then change the law? That's the same principle you're using -- that only those with suffrage in a social arrangement should have the ability to determine suffrage of other groups. </p>
<p>Rousseau rightfully saw this principle as very problematic ....</p>
<p>Furthermore, you are using terms that need defining. </p>
<p>You people keep on using terms like, "home" and "from" and making equivocations with duty. But that's very easy for you to say when you've only had one home, and have only been <em>from</em> one place. What does it mean to be "from" another country?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah .... he didn't graduate. Very smart there.
[/quote]
My uncle never graduated from college, but he's a mathematical genius. Degrees don't give any indication of actual intelligence, and to say that so dismissively is pretentious beyond belief.</p>
<p>As for your last point: in England, the House of Lords consistently obliged the kings' demands for suffrage for a greater number of people. They have been blackmailed ("We'll make more peerages and then you'll have to chat with the nouveau-riche!"), but they did it nonetheless, without political overthrow by the lower classes.</p>
<p>It just occurred to me how amusing it is that galoisien is fighting for political reform in the US, but, as a PR and not a US citizen, he has no say in the government! Wowee.</p>
<p>...the percent doesn't matter...that's still 40% who live below the poverty line and it doesn't indicate that those above the poverty line have the same opportunities as people who visit Mexico for vacation or decide to live there as your aunt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It just occurred to me how amusing it is that galoisien is fighting for political reform in the US, but, as a PR and not a US citizen, he has no say in the government! Wowee.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I have no say in the government of birth country either, and never will, unless civil rights in Singapore get enacted sometime. ^_^ </p>
<p>You and zoosermom's conceptions of moral debt and obligation are very funny. Analogously, if you were a financial aid officer, why the hell would you accept financial statements from the adoptive parents of an adopted student? By your definitions of moral debt, the ORIGINAL BIRTH MOTHER should be financing the college expenses. And screw the student if the birth mother won't pay, cuz using the financial aid statements of the adoptive parents only provides a SAFETY VALVE that will reward the IRRESPONSIBLE BIRTH MOTHER for absconding her duties. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My uncle never graduated from college, but he's a mathematical genius. Degrees don't give any indication of actual intelligence, and to say that so dismissively is pretentious beyond belief.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not the one who cited the fact that Mick Jagger went to the LSE. But if you're going to appeal to ethos .... then maybe the qualifications you're using for that ethos should be valid?</p>
<p>How is it pretentious beyond belief to point this out? PLEASE, CHECK THE PREMISES OF THE ORIGINAL BLOODY ARGUMENT.</p>
<p>Collegealum stated: "Hey look, buddy, Mick Jagger went to the London School of Economics. He's a smart guy. If he says it's an oxymoron, then it is."</p>
<p>Just because he went to that school does not automatically make him a "smart guy," and make everything he says true, which is probably what galoisen was getting at.</p>
<p>
[quote]
.the percent doesn't matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It absolutely does matter. You want to claim that virtually 100% of Mexico is downtrodden poverty, and devoid of opportunity for its citizens. This is factually false. There are citizens of Mexico who are extremely well-off, moreso than people who visit for bargain vacation purposes.</p>
<p>Yes there are...and there are STILL 40% below the poverty line. Whether it's 1% or 40% or 99%, they are still below the poverty line, living in anguish due to economical issues, so they try to resolve their problem by coming to the U.S.
Although illegal, the children of the illegal immigrants do not deserve to be deported or separated from their family (stunting their educational opportunities) when the home they call home is not a foreign country but the U.S.</p>
<p>Thanks for the newsflash.</p>
<p>You're welcome.</p>
<p>"Firstly, can you confirm you do not believe there cannot be a law (any law) so immediately vile to the population in its apparent injustice and infelicities that common sense tells a people to disobey it? That is, no matter what the law says or prescribes, no matter who it impacts, no matter its scope, no matter the possible threats to liberty it may create, each and every law has been passed and will be passed in the future must be invariably obeyed, to maintain your idea of law and order?"</p>
<p>I surmised as much, but I don't think it is a relevant discourse here since the laws in question are about what the US has deemed best regarding its own welfare. We do not legislate in accordance to what foreigners want; and their trials, though unfortunate, do not give them special latitude to violate the laws we've established relative to our own society. This is not an issue of governmental oppression of its own citizens in the US, but rather, foreigners trying to make a claim to citizens rights to which they are not entitled. </p>
<p>That said, I don't lack understanding as to why people would choose to violate laws when they are desparate. That doesn't make current circumstances any more palatable in my thinking however. I believe there are better ways to manage this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I surmised as much, but I don't think it is a relevant discourse here since the laws in question are about what the US has deemed best regarding its own welfare. We do not legislate in accordance to what foreigners want;
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fallacy of equivocation, not to mention circular logic. </p>
<p>You cannot argue using those definitions when those definitions are the very heart of the matter and are under dispute. You are using definitions under dispute ... to prove definitions under dispute. (The subject of "who is American?" is the thing being argued here.) So you're not using the best of logic.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the US is not a monolithic entity, but rather a society comprised of hundreds of millions of individuals, so the singular is very inappropriate in the current discussion.</p>
<p>You are making arguments of moral obligation and debt while having outlined no moral basis for why you think the moral obligations in these circumstances are the way you claim them to be. You can't say they don't have a claim to "rights to which they are not entitled" when I am contesting the very idea that they are not entitled to it, or that they are citizens (or residents, if you will) all but in name. </p>
<p>I have presented an alternate rights framework according to a Rousseaunian-Lockean interpretation of social contract theory, which challenges your unqualified assertion that such rights can be morally and justly withheld in the circumstances previously outlined. Please at least respond to this framework without conveniently dismissing it because you refuse to reevaluate your existing ideas concerning the nature of citizenship and membership in a society.</p>
<p>Furthermore, simply because I am only a legal resident, doesn't mean I don't have rights. If a new unjust law should infringe upon those rights (some of which may be granted constitutionally), according to your logic, I may only wait for that law to be repealed in order to challenge it? </p>
<p>Do you even look at the moral consistencies of your own arguments?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I surmised as much, but I don't think it is a relevant discourse here
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please answer the question ..... you once again have evaded it totally. Or are you afraid that actually answering it directly will totally undermine your argument?</p>
<p>I will show its pertinence in a moment. Please answer the question. Stop dancing around it.</p>
<p>"Suppose if the US government had never enacted voter reform such that poorer landless tenant farmers (etc.) still couldn't vote. What should you tell them? Get some land and then change the law? That's the same principle you're using -- that only those with suffrage in a social arrangement should have the ability to determine suffrage of other groups."</p>
<p>Were the tenant farmers citizens or foreigners?</p>
<p>Since they couldn't vote, they technically were not citizens, yes?</p>
<p>I'm only using your definitions </p>
<p>" You can't say, they don't have a claim to "rights to which they are not entitled" when I am contesting the very idea that they are not entitled to it, or that they are citizens (or residents, if you will) all but in name"</p>
<p>Sure I can:</p>
<p>"Since rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, deserve losing their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. It is justified with laws punishing behavior that breaks the Social Contract because we are concerned about others harming us and don't plan on harming others. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968).</p>