.

[Fidelio]

which principle?

that there are reasons to discriminate

you're asking me if the principle that there are reasons to discriminate is applied widely?  of course it is.  we discriminate against people who are not americans per se all the time.

Even though some of us do, this doesn't equate to it being a reason nor it being applied on a government policy basis. 

[rhombot]

i'm not a fan of historical claims as justification for anything. 

if it helps you accept it, you can read it not as a historical argument but as a criminal justice argument.

[philibusters]

Rhombot I usually agree with what you say in part, but you see everything in such absolute terms.  The economic ideology of the U.S. has many, sometimes competing purposes.  Also its economic ideology sometimes competes with its social ideologies for examples-in other words, I don't think the world works in the absolutes that your rhetoric portrays it as.

the only legitimate claims they have against the U.S. are in a court of morality.  The real world is run by the court of power.  All countries conduct foreign policies for their own interest, we have power so we can make other countries' behavior conform to our wishes or else, but that the way the world works.  If a country doesn't have a malevolent foreign policy they probably don't have much power-sometimes you make it sound like we are in evil empire, we are not, we are simply self interested.  (I hate when Republicans use the word evil)

[Fidelio]

I am sure you'll see some two-faced politicians come out of the lurch with their foot in the mouth for supporting anti-immigration legistlation yet also favor the apartheid wall being built in Israel against the Palestinians.

[Fidelio]

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.

These are some of what the broader issues I mentioned before are, and to bring up felony crimes (as another poster did) and use it as a parralel and say "well your breaking the law here too" simply doesn't add up. 

[rhombot]

Rhombot I usually agree with what you say in part, but you see everything in such absolute terms.  The economic ideology of the U.S. has many, sometimes competing purposes.  Also its economic ideology sometimes competes with its social ideologies for examples-in other words, I don't think the world works in the absolutes that your rhetoric portrays it as.

the only legitimate claims they have against the U.S. are in a court of morality.  The real world is run by the court of power.  All countries conduct foreign policies for their own interest, we have power so we can make other countries' behavior conform to our wishes or else, but that the way the world works.  If a country doesn't have a malevolent foreign policy they probably don't have much power.

but i'm just raising questions and suggestions, no? i certainly have grey areas - they may just be in different places than most people's. partly this may come from my moral sense. in the case of immigration, my family's history (my dad's family came to north america essentially as displaced people) probably has a lot to do with it.

as for "the only legitimate claims they have against the U.S. are in a court of morality": i think there may be legal claims, but it's moot, since i've been arguing on the basis of morality. i'm assuming, of course, that states should act morally.

[redemption]

This thread's 3 pages, now? I'll read and post.

[Fidelio]

which principle?

that there are reasons to discriminate

you're asking me if the principle that there are reasons to discriminate is applied widely?  of course it is.  we discriminate against people who are not americans per se all the time.

Even though some of us do, this doesn't equate to it being a reason nor it being applied on a government policy basis. 

all fine and good, but it still works as a counter-argument to red's saying that immigrants have the right to live anywhere if there is no good reason to discriminate.

rhombot- criminal justice issue?  how so?

apartheid wall.  nice turn of phrase.

Even if I retract, the context will still remain the same. 

[rhombot]

stan: victim's rights. e.g. if you're a citizen of a country that's been terrorized or otherwise victimized by a criminal action of the local superpower, you get a free pass into the superpower as compensation.

although if we adopt this reasoning, it might not apply to mexico. i'm not aware of any recent US crimes against mexico.

apartheid wall: bad analogy. its purpose is not to keep palestinians out of israel - it's to carve up palestine. that's why it's not on the border but inside the occupied territories.

[rhombot]

you don't assume states should act morally? how should they act, then?