.

[redemption]

so then where do these rights come from?

the only reason that i believe otherwise is because of religion.  your excuse?

What is this? Judo?

My excuse? If there's no good reason to dicriminiate against people, we shouldn't. It sounds terribly common-sensical, but I'm like that sometimes.

Law per se is not a good reason and never had been. (You may have heard this from me before).

[philibusters]

sounds like a con law argument, where the conseratives say rights cannot be recognized if history and tradition or the modern political processes don't recognize them (Glucksberg for example), and liberals saying rights are also grounded in natural law and sense of decency (Lawrence v. Texas for example).  The posters in this thread are using the word "rights" vaguely, but to some degree some do courts on 14th amendment issues.  How do you find rights is a hot issue in con law right now, especially with the change in the composition of the court.

[Fidelio]

why don't more people look at news threads dammit?

because we're all too busy looking at the OT threads about sex and female masturbation.

Not necessarily all of us 

[Fidelio]

so then where do these rights come from?

the only reason that i believe otherwise is because of religion.  your excuse?

What is this? Judo?

My excuse? If there's no good reason to dicriminiate against people, we shouldn't. It sounds terribly common-sensical, but I'm like that sometimes.

Law per se is not a good reason and never had been. (You may have heard this from me before).

yes, i've heard you say it repeatedly.  but "if there's no good reason to discriminate against people, we shouldn't", where does that come from?  why is that axiomatic?

and one could argue that there are political/economic/social reasons to discriminate against immigrants, depending on one's goals.

Do you honestly think this principle is applied on a widespread basis?

[Fidelio]

which principle?

that there are reasons to discriminate

[philibusters]

discrimination is not always unjustified.  Surely a law that discriminates people on the basis of age or a handicap  can be justified, some claim AA is a need form of discrimination because it serves as a form of restitution, (we screwed you and put you in a bad position, now we help you), it also makes sense for example to discriminate against illegals by not allowing them to vote cause they don't pay taxes and can still vote in their native country (which brings in the interesting quesiton of dual citizenship) for example. 

However, I think its a stupid policy, economically, morally, and maybe even culturally to deny the right of illegals to stay here and come here.

I am not arguing the US has an obligation to have an open border or they don't have a right to regulate their borders, I think its jsut bad policy.

[Fidelio]

there are few, if any, countries with an open boarder policy where people can just come and go as they please....i just dont get why people insist that the US for some reason has an obligation to have an open boarder policy just because people happen to rather be here than where they were born...yes, it's horrible that millions (hell, billions) around the world must suffer in the countries they were born in and no doubt they have a better chance of improving their lives by moving to the US, but whoever told you the world is fair lied to you...simple point is this country, like most others, have an immigration policy and those that want to be here legally must obey the laws of the land...if you want to benefit from a society you must obey its rules and laws...why do murderers go to jail and lose A LOT of their rights?  cuz they broke the law...why do rapists go to jail and lose these rights? cuz they broke the law...now why should someone whose mere presence in this country is illegal expect the same rights and privledges as those of us here legally?

I believe the examples you are bringing up here are classic "chalk and cheese"

Immigration to US has a far more underlying and complicated basis than to compare it with felony crimes.  

[Fidelio]

discrimination is not always unjustified.  Surely a law that discriminates people on the basis of age or a handicap  can be justified, some claim AA is a need form of discrimination because it serves as a form of restitution, (we screwed you and put you in a bad position, now we help you), it also makes sense for example to discriminate against illegals by not allowing them to vote cause they don't pay taxes and can still vote in their native country (which brings in the interesting quesiton of dual citizenship) for example. 

However, I think its a stupid policy, economically, morally, and maybe even culturally to deny the right of illegals to stay here and come here.

I am not arguing the US has an obligation to have an open border or they don't have a right to regulate their borders, I think its jsut bad policy.

well said, but discriminate against them, how and why? 

[chidochido]

I had a conversation about this with a bunch of people in Montreal when I visited last month and they laughed bc it was so easy for them to cross over if they really wanted to...Meanwhile, you have hundreds of bodies found in the deserts along the southern border every year...it's sad.

When you consider that there is no proposal to build a wall across the northern border, which is where we had catastrophic terrorist activity before, I start to think that this is more about scapegoating than anything else...
It's interesting that W is actually in the compassionate center on this issue, at least within the republican wing...a selfish part of me is almost cheering for Frist to prevail with a heavy handed bill that could bring some inner tensions in the party to the surface and also leave Latinos (rightly) disillusioned with the repos for actually proposing this BS...it could tip the scales in the democrats' favor for the next 10-20 years if all the Latinos get pissed...

[rhombot]

well, i would challenge the "right" of the US to regulate the borders and to keep immigrants out, on a couple of grounds.

first, the economic ideology that underlies our political-social-economic system includes a "free market". but there can't be a free market if workers can't freely enter the country.

second, to answer one of the questions i posed earlier, the vast majority of illegal immigrants have legitimate claims against the US, because they've lost economic opportunities as the result of criminal US behavior. e.g. the conquest and annexation of parts of mexico, the war against latin america, the war against southeast asia, and the destabilization of governments around the world. i suggest that it is a moral imperative for a country that criminally exploits other countries economically to then open its borders to immigrants from those countries.

discrimination is not always unjustified.  Surely a law that discriminates people on the basis of age or a handicap  can be justified, some claim AA is a need form of discrimination because it serves as a form of restitution, (we screwed you and put you in a bad position, now we help you), it also makes sense for example to discriminate against illegals by not allowing them to vote cause they don't pay taxes and can still vote in their native country (which brings in the interesting quesiton of dual citizenship) for example. 

However, I think its a stupid policy, economically, morally, and maybe even culturally to deny the right of illegals to stay here and come here.

I am not arguing the US has an obligation to have an open border or they don't have a right to regulate their borders, I think its jsut bad policy.