CDZ Discussion Question About Immigration

[Agit8r]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

 

[Correll]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

 

[Correll]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

The Debate at this time isn't HOW TO enforce the democratically enacted Will of the People,

BUT rather IF the People have a Right to determine their national policy though democracy

AND if we as a nation have the ability to enforce the Will of the People.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

We are not a democracy.

 

[Agit8r]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

I'm commenting on the effect of laws and policies. Nothing more.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

The Debate at this time isn't HOW TO enforce the democratically enacted Will of the People,

BUT rather IF the People have a Right to determine their national policy though democracy

AND if we as a nation have the ability to enforce the Will of the People.

We are not a democracy run by mob rule. The Will of the People is not absolute.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

I say that freedom of movement about the planet is an inalienable right that has nothing to do with political boundaries.

That contradicts the RIght of National Sovereignty.

Which is an actual right.

Well, in my mind, a natural right is more important than a legal right, and anything accruing from national sovereignty is a matter of legal rights rather than natural rights. Sovereignty is something that is recognized and mutually agreed upon by the parties involved, I suppose one could claim that a natural law, rather than a man made one, is what grants sovereignty to a given person or entity. That doesn't really seem applicable when it comes to nation states like the U.S. for there is nothing that naturally endowed Europeans, and thus us as their descendents, a natural right to the territory now called the U.S. The fact is that, while we will do nothing much to make amends for having done so, our forebears basically usurped/took the territory of North America from the people who were already in it for millennia before any European arrived.

So how many homeless people do you let live in your house?

 

[Correll]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

We are not a democracy.

We are a Republic with many democratic institutions.

Do you support the idea that People have the Right to govern themselves though their democratically elected representatives?

 

[Correll]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

I'm commenting on the effect of laws and policies. Nothing more.

The OP asks if they have the right.

That is the topic.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Do you support the idea that People have the Right to govern themselves though their democratically elected representatives?

Not as an absolute, no. Slavery is a good example.

 

[Agit8r]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

I'm commenting on the effect of laws and policies. Nothing more.

The OP asks if they have the right.

That is the topic.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

 

[Correll]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

The Debate at this time isn't HOW TO enforce the democratically enacted Will of the People,

BUT rather IF the People have a Right to determine their national policy though democracy

AND if we as a nation have the ability to enforce the Will of the People.

We are not a democracy run by mob rule. The Will of the People is not absolute.

I do not see how "MOb Rule" comes into a discussion of whether Immigrants have the Right to enter our country or whether the American people have the Right to determine who may or may not enter our country.

 

[Correll]

Do you support the idea that People have the Right to govern themselves though their democratically elected representatives?

Not as an absolute, no. Slavery is a good example.

So, how does that relate to Immigration?

ARe you saying that Immigrants have the Right to enter nations, such as ours, regardless of the wishes of the citizens of those nations?

 

[Correll]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions. To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

I'm commenting on the effect of laws and policies. Nothing more.

The OP asks if they have the right.

That is the topic.

Those "arbitrary" restrictions are the democratically expressed Will of the People.

To dismiss them for no reason is to be anti-democracy.

To enforce them is to be pro-democratic.

Are you for or against democracy?

I take it from your evasion that you are against democracy, but prefer to not admit it plainly.

Me? I support Democracy, specifically our Representative form.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions.

Collecting welfare is not nearly as essential as you make it out to be .

To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Is it legal to hire illegals?

If not, then why would employers do it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

So an illegal comes in, buys a social security card and a green card from on of a million "immigration lawyers" who are on every street in the Southwest. The employer does the I-9 as required, along with e-verify.

But you say the employer should go to jail?

You voted for Obama, dinja?

 

[Agit8r]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions.

Collecting welfare is not nearly as essential as you make it out to be .

To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Is it legal to hire illegals?

If not, then why would employers do it?

Never mind, it must be the lettuce fairy that picks it so cheap.

 

[JoeMoma]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

The Debate at this time isn't HOW TO enforce the democratically enacted Will of the People,

BUT rather IF the People have a Right to determine their national policy though democracy

AND if we as a nation have the ability to enforce the Will of the People.

We are not a democracy run by mob rule. The Will of the People is not absolute.

Democratic Republic, but the issue of it being the law/will of the people is still the same. That being said, some rights of individuals should trump the will of the people, but foreigners coming into our country without permission/regulation is not one of them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Never mind, it must be the lettuce fairy that picks it so cheap.

Ah, a red herring logical fallacy, how clever.

So the question is, is it legal for employers to hire illegal aliens?

If it is not, why would passing a law to make that which is already illegal, illegal, have any effect? Will this address the rampant identity theft that is used by illegals and their promoters?