Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Think Your Ancestors Were Legal Immigrants? THINK AGAIN.

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Rational E,

    I love your mind.

    Comment


    • #17
      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BronzeLady:
      Rational E,

      I love your mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

      I believe you.

      Comment


      • #18
        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just for the record I was being a bit of a smart a s s with the yong wong hung stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

        We all are from time to time.

        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, I do understand the weekness of the legal requirements of then versus now. And how most if under the same legal requirements of today would have been turned away 100 years ago. But thats life, and is how many politicians will use little known facts to sway an opinion. Regadless, it still doesn't take away from the fact we can not have a wholesale amnesty program. We did that years back and it only made matters worse today.

        The politicians do have to represent their voters as long as it is within the confines of the law. If we use the same analogy of past laws to present then arguments could be made to ban the womens right to vote, to bring back slavery, etc. Point being we can't look too far back at prior legal situations and try to apply them to today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

        Your vision of what can or can not take place at present is correct.
        But the arguments you use are vulnerable.
        Not that it matters much, but it wouldn't hurt if you could produce arguments that were as strong as their cause.

        Comment


        • #19
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
          However, I do understand the weekness of the legal requirements of then versus now. And how most if under the same legal requirements of today would have been turned away 100 years ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          There is no 'however' or/and 'and', it's just a matter of fact.

          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But thats life, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          You are right about that.

          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..and is how many politicians will use little known facts to sway an opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          It isn't clear to whom, what politicians you refer to in the context.

          But in general, any politician will use any facts, little of well known, to advance his/her own cause (and if not, then he/she better look for a job in a different sector).


          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regadless, it still doesn't take away from the fact we can not have a wholesale amnesty program. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Regardless of what?
          Of politicians doing their job?

          It's true that wholesale amnesty is political impossibility at present time, but where does it connect to previous statement, or how previous acknowledgement implies feasibility of amnesty to justify "Regardless" in the beginning of the next sentence?


          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We did that years back and it only made matters worse today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Matters are worse today not because of amnesty yesterday, but because half of 1986 legislation was left perpetually unenforced.

          While INA said that it was "illegal" to work and be present in US, nothing was done to enforce it and overall atmosphere was like "since you are here who cares how you got here and what papers you have or have not, just don't do a crime and no one will bother you in twenty(almost literally) years".
          Of course millions have poured in, as a direct consequence of the failure to enforce INA.

          But amnesty can not nor will be enacted today or anytime soon.
          There are natural reasons to that, but you cite none.


          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The politicians do have to represent their voters as long as it is within the confines of the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          This is correct.

          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If we use the same analogy of past laws to present then arguments could be made to ban the womens right to vote, to bring back slavery, etc. Point being we can't look too far back at prior legal situations and try to apply them to today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          But OP's argument wasn't that we should restore all or any of the laws of the past.

          He stated (and it's valid argument, btw) that one can't successfully argue against amnesty on the grounds of "My ancestors came here legally" because it sounds like "calling someone a good driver because they never got caught speeding on the Autobahn".

          But, regardless, the OP's position is unrealistic and indefensible from practical point of view, therefore my responces were:

          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RationalE:

          It's not analogies/articles that decide the course of events.

          It's the course of events that decides everything else </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          and

          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no fallacy with his logic or argument per se.
          But there is a great fallacy in his lack of understanding how the social, political processess evolve in practice.
          They are more like natural fenomena with natural causes and effects that can not be influenced by mere/abstract logic or argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


          Now concentrate your mind and think of it a bit, don't just readily resort to sardonic remarks (I know you are very good at latter).
          With your background, your life experience, your intelligence and practical wisdom you should be doing better than that (obviously I don't know anything about you beyond what you posted here, but it was enough to appreciate some of your personal and intellectual qualities, which you don't use to the fraction most of the time).


          Regards,

          RationalE

          Comment


          • #20
            Hey, welcome back Iperson, haven't heard from you in a while.

            Comment


            • #21
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
              The Yung gang is a yawn, consisting of Davdah and RationalE. The talk is empty, I see words and letters typed but no substance whatsoever. It's like seeing water splashed on glass or paper. It either evaporates or slides right off of my mind.
              Futile conversations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

              I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks, Iperson!

              Comment


              • #22
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
                The Yung gang is a yawn, consisting of Davdah and RationalE. The talk is empty, I see words and letters typed but no substance whatsoever. It's like seeing water splashed on glass or paper. It either evaporates or slides right off of my mind.
                Futile conversations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                The highest point of mental and spiritual excellence is attainment of emptiness.
                I appreciate your comment (which is, indeed, a compliment).

                Regards,

                RationalE

                Comment


                • #23
                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By definition a politician is kissing a baby when the camera is rolling and stealing their candy when not.

                  If never caught speeding it is possible they never do. Not me, too many tickets, wrecked cars.

                  The rules made concerning immigration are not being enforced to any real extent. A token arrest here and there is all we see. The border is wide open for any one to kangaroo across. The real benefactors are larger employers from cheap labor. They have a lobbiest, thats why.

                  I wasn't saying the laws should be restored. It was the idea of the argument concerning the legal comparison of prior laws to today. That it was so easy then compared to now isn't a fair statement to make. By the same token getting a phd 100 years ago was much easier than today. A student could argue they should be at the same standard as then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



                  Ok, I get your point.
                  You are not interested in responding to any point of view , even if it's in agreement (in core) with what you were trying to say.

                  You are an abstractionist on your own.
                  You 'splash' disconnected images and leave it to others to make sense of it

                  I certainly won't try to interpret it.

                  Regards,

                  RationalE

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    If you are lazy to type may be you are also lazy to read

                    Anyway, what matters is the totality of circumstances and forces.

                    They are such that amnesty is not feasible at present time.
                    And no argument will change that.

                    In fact the wise/best thing to do is to increase the enforcement measures and secure the borders.

                    Simple..

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The two extreme measures to solve the current illegal immigration problem are BLANKET AMNESTY and MASS DEPORTATION.

                      But I think the right way to solve this huge issue is addressing it in the MIDDLE, because either one of these extremes is not POSSIBLE to carry out now.

                      That's what the current US legislative branches attempted at doing this year, (after lots of in the past and a last-ditch one at that) that miserably failed due to time constraints and the politics of it all.

                      No wonder, because what they're trying to achieve is not an EVENT, but rather a long-drawn PROCESS.

                      Hence, what we got out of them until now is the status quo, the most convenient alternative for them, but not necessarily for us. Oh, they passed into law the REAL ID and BORDER FENCE Acts. So, what choices do we have other than to wait and see?

                      And in case people tend to forget how this country leans towards laying bridges rather than building walls to newcomers, this is just a reminder.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, Im not lazy to read. I learned early on you need to read the entire post in order to make any kind of intelligent reply. I just hate the idea of re-posting in quotes what has already been said. Maybe I should have quoted you here rational since yours is one further back. Ehhh, screw it...

                        Good article about who was here first. We could do either immigration alternative but the forces opposing both are too strong for the politicians to fend off.

                        I may not like what you say but I've defended your right to say it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        Looks like you had few of Heinekens before posting this..
                        Oh, brother..
                        Life goes on, so let's just enjoy it while we can.
                        Chips will fall as they may..

                        RationalE

                        Comment

                        Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                        Home Page

                        Immigration Daily

                        Archives

                        Processing times

                        Immigration forms

                        Discussion board

                        Resources

                        Blogs

                        Twitter feed

                        Immigrant Nation

                        Attorney2Attorney

                        CLE Workshops

                        Immigration books

                        Advertise on ILW

                        EB-5

                        移民日报

                        About ILW.COM

                        Connect to us

                        Questions/Comments

                        SUBSCRIBE

                        Immigration Daily



                        Working...
                        X