100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students... - Page 4

Motorboat Cruiser · 03-28-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

And if security is on his mind, shouldn't the fact that the hijackers came in through Canada be on his mind also? Unless I heard it wrong, that's where they came from. So why focus on the southern border?

Actually, one was through Washington, the other through Texas, so it was both borders that failed.

Alex · 03-28-2006, 10:29 AM

I'm here fully legally. On my fathers side my grandmother has a pretty complete geneology that goes back to the Maine area before the Revolutionary War and on my mother's side all her grandparents entered, legally, from Norway in the 1940s. I also have never hired an illegal cheaply.

Does this earn me the right to tell others how they can enter the country?

Though frankly I'm unclear on how it would be that if I did have an ancestor who entered the country illegally means I have given up the right to disapprove. I may have ancestors who owned slaves (though if they were all in Norway and Maine then probably not) and I reserve the right to disapprove of that.

Since there is so much space left in the country I am assuming you're advocating putting all the illegals in the Badlands of Wyoming where they can garden and bus tables for all the gringos who aren't there. There is a lot of empty space in this country but that is a fallacious point since the immigrants (legal or otherwise) don't go where the people aren't but mostly go to the most crowded areas of the country.

But again, if they can arrange things such that they can support themselves I don't care if they're allowed in, in whatever numbers that is. But we have, I feel, the obligation to know they're here. And if they come on work visas then boot them out when they're done.

I also think that being born on U.S. soil to non-U.S. citizens should not automatically grant citizenship.

As for nukular, considering half of the nuclear physicists I knew at UW (and I knew a lot of them) said nukular I can't really get too upset about it. However, another word that immediately makes me angry is "sammich" for "sandwich."

scaeagles · 03-28-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I also think that being born on U.S. soil to non-U.S. citizens should not automatically grant citizenship.

As for nukular, considering half of the nuclear physicists I knew at UW (and I knew a lot of them) said nukular I can't really get too upset about it. However, another word that immediately makes me angry is "sammich" for "sandwich."

I believe the time has come to amend the constitution to put a halt to automatic citizenship based on being born here.

My pet peave word is "lookit". I hate it when my kids (or my wife, for that matter) tell me to "lookit". I also dislike when someone has to use the word "like" every third word of a sentence. "It was, like, when I went to, like, the mall and, like, got those, like, hot jeans!"

Not Afraid · 03-28-2006, 10:58 AM

I come from all legal stock, tymv. My ancentors missed the laws by almost 200 years. But, I don't believe I have more of a right to be here than anyone else.

Border security is a huge problem. Our borders are immense and we rely on a sheer multitude of people to make decisions about individuals crossing the borders. I'm sure the right decisions is not made every time. Can you imagine the time it would take to get into the US if everyone was scrutinized in the same way? IT's a problem and I don't have the answer.

As far as language is concerned, I really hate ax for ask, pacific for specific and, it writing, I hate woot. What does woot mean anyways?

innerSpaceman · 03-28-2006, 11:15 AM

I love the evolvement of language. Woot is a perfect example of time moving on, new words being created. I don't much like lazy mispronunciation, but new words are fine by me ... as are fun, made-up words like "evolvement."

Not Afraid - have you considered how many new words have likely come into the lexicon since your great great great great great freaking great grandad was the pastor aboard the Mayflower? Evolvement, baby!

* * * * *

You can't have border security in a nation with 5,000 miles worth of border. Not till the 28th century when mountain-to-mountain force fields will be cheap enough to implement.

* * * * *

And along the line of impossibility ... and sorry to respond to something so last page...

scaeagles - if child abuse and murder were as widespread as illegal immigration, drug use and prostitution, I would be in favor of those things being legal as well. If tens of millions of people in a particular society are murderers, there is no sense in providing that society with legal protection from murder. And legal protection wouldn't work. You cannot eliminate anything that tens of millions of people do ... and yes, you heard me right, you shouldn't bother trying.

When tens of millions do it, it's no longer immoral. If murder is the order of the day in Freedonia, then Freedonia's morals allow for homocide.

Alex · 03-28-2006, 11:21 AM

Did you mean that last word the way you wrote it?

scaeagles · 03-28-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles - if child abuse and murder were as widespread as illegal immigration, drug use and prostitution, I would be in favor of those things being legal as well. If tens of millions of people in a particular society are murderers, there is no sense in providing that society with legal protection from murder. And legal protection wouldn't work. You cannot eliminate anything that tens of millions of people do ... and yes, you heard me right, you shouldn't bother trying.

When tens of millions do it, it's no longer immoral. If murder is the order of the day in Freedonia, then Freedonia's morals allow for homocide.

Interesting.

I am really not trying to be ridiculous here, but I don't think these are far from thinking murder would be acceptable - meaning that preventing it should not be a focus of society - if the majority of the population was doing it.

Does this mean that should you have lived in the confederate states in the early 1800s you would have wanted to keep slavery legal? Or that no should bother trying to eliminate it?

If you lived in Rwanda, would you think genocide is acceptable because such a huge portion of the populace participates in it? Or that it is pointless to try to stop it?

If you lived in Germany, would the extermination of the Jews have been acceptable?

Not Afraid · 03-28-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Not Afraid - have you considered how many new words have likely come into the lexicon since your great great great great great freaking great grandad was the pastor aboard the Mayflower? Evolvement, baby!

Oh, I LOVE new language. I just can't seem to get my arms around the "word" woot.

tracilicious · 03-28-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles - if child abuse and murder were as widespread as illegal immigration, drug use and prostitution, I would be in favor of those things being legal as well. If tens of millions of people in a particular society are murderers, there is no sense in providing that society with legal protection from murder. And legal protection wouldn't work. You cannot eliminate anything that tens of millions of people do ... and yes, you heard me right, you shouldn't bother trying.

When tens of millions do it, it's no longer immoral. If murder is the order of the day in Freedonia, then Freedonia's morals allow for homocide.

That's just ridiculous though. You might as well say that if the majority of people in society enjoy putting out cigarettes on babies then why bother trying to protect the babies. Might as well make it legal. Some things are worth being illegal, even if lots of people do it, because there are victims involved. The law isn't just to please the majority, but also to protect the minority.

Alex · 03-28-2006, 11:44 AM

Yeah, you had me with you for a while, iSm. When mass flouting of a law is a sign that the criminalized behavior is victimless (as with doing drugs and non-black market prostitution) then I think it means that criminalization was a mistake.

Now, while I agree that if a behavior is something that millions do then it is unlikely to be illegal in the first place but that doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong to advocate for criminalization. By that argument antebellum abolitionists were on the wrong side of the issue.

03-28-2006, 10:29 AM	#32
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm here fully legally. On my fathers side my grandmother has a pretty complete geneology that goes back to the Maine area before the Revolutionary War and on my mother's side all her grandparents entered, legally, from Norway in the 1940s. I also have never hired an illegal cheaply. Does this earn me the right to tell others how they can enter the country? Though frankly I'm unclear on how it would be that if I did have an ancestor who entered the country illegally means I have given up the right to disapprove. I may have ancestors who owned slaves (though if they were all in Norway and Maine then probably not) and I reserve the right to disapprove of that. Since there is so much space left in the country I am assuming you're advocating putting all the illegals in the Badlands of Wyoming where they can garden and bus tables for all the gringos who aren't there. There is a lot of empty space in this country but that is a fallacious point since the immigrants (legal or otherwise) don't go where the people aren't but mostly go to the most crowded areas of the country. But again, if they can arrange things such that they can support themselves I don't care if they're allowed in, in whatever numbers that is. But we have, I feel, the obligation to know they're here. And if they come on work visas then boot them out when they're done. I also think that being born on U.S. soil to non-U.S. citizens should not automatically grant citizenship. As for nukular, considering half of the nuclear physicists I knew at UW (and I knew a lot of them) said nukular I can't really get too upset about it. However, another word that immediately makes me angry is "sammich" for "sandwich."
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 10:58 AM	#34
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	I come from all legal stock, tymv. My ancentors missed the laws by almost 200 years. But, I don't believe I have more of a right to be here than anyone else. Border security is a huge problem. Our borders are immense and we rely on a sheer multitude of people to make decisions about individuals crossing the borders. I'm sure the right decisions is not made every time. Can you imagine the time it would take to get into the US if everyone was scrutinized in the same way? IT's a problem and I don't have the answer. As far as language is concerned, I really hate ax for ask, pacific for specific and, it writing, I hate woot. What does woot mean anyways?
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 11:15 AM	#35
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I love the evolvement of language. Woot is a perfect example of time moving on, new words being created. I don't much like lazy mispronunciation, but new words are fine by me ... as are fun, made-up words like "evolvement." Not Afraid - have you considered how many new words have likely come into the lexicon since your great great great great great freaking great grandad was the pastor aboard the Mayflower? Evolvement, baby! * * * * * You can't have border security in a nation with 5,000 miles worth of border. Not till the 28th century when mountain-to-mountain force fields will be cheap enough to implement. * * * * * And along the line of impossibility ... and sorry to respond to something so last page... scaeagles - if child abuse and murder were as widespread as illegal immigration, drug use and prostitution, I would be in favor of those things being legal as well. If tens of millions of people in a particular society are murderers, there is no sense in providing that society with legal protection from murder. And legal protection wouldn't work. You cannot eliminate anything that tens of millions of people do ... and yes, you heard me right, you shouldn't bother trying. When tens of millions do it, it's no longer immoral. If murder is the order of the day in Freedonia, then Freedonia's morals allow for homocide.
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 11:21 AM	#36
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Did you mean that last word the way you wrote it?
	Submit to Quotes

03-28-2006, 11:44 AM	#40
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yeah, you had me with you for a while, iSm. When mass flouting of a law is a sign that the criminalized behavior is victimless (as with doing drugs and non-black market prostitution) then I think it means that criminalization was a mistake. Now, while I agree that if a behavior is something that millions do then it is unlikely to be illegal in the first place but that doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong to advocate for criminalization. By that argument antebellum abolitionists were on the wrong side of the issue.
	Submit to Quotes