Arizona's Illegal Immigration Law

[TheJackel]

Anyone who says immigrants don't work their asses off needs to come here to SoCal.  As a retail manager, I'd rather hire an immigrant (documented, of course) than the kids we're spitting out of high school; they have one helluva work ethic, rarely ask for time off, and most important, they understand that the only entitlement that matters is the one they earn.

What? I've seen just as many lazy immigrants.. Though most I would say work really well, and very hard.. I don't know very many people that would even suggest otherwise and it really a moot point.. And if they are legal and a harder worker they deserve the job over some lazy worker. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking for time off, you can't expect people to be work slaves and not enjoy their life, family, and friends.. Many companies have paid vacation, and Legal Seafood's makes me take it.

[TheJackel]

When England manages to get their Natural reserves back over 60%, and completely repair their biodiversity you let me know.

Is this not Moving the Goalposts?  After all, limiting immigration here in America won't "completely repair our biodiversity".  Nor will limiting immigration (either legal or illegal) have any effect on protected acreage.

I never stated it would completely repair our biodiversity, please read my above post in regards to Davin's.. Controlling immigration is a control point to which we should have absolute control over, and this is of course includes many other control points that effect our biodiversity.. America simply should never reach the point where they have to be like England to fight for every inch in order to save their habitats and biodiversity. It's simply food for thought that we ought not become like England and work on solutions that prevent that.. So open door policy definitely is not a smart choice, but a bad choice in this regard.

[Davin]

No, if you actually read what I typed then you'd have my position correct.

Lets back track shall we.

1)

I don't think the borders need to be closed, other than people avoiding responsibility for the crimes they've committed, I say let them in if they want. Give them better access to work visas, tax them, get them documented and make it easier to understand the process and/or provide someone that can explain the process. I think those things will solve a lot of the illegal part of the problem as well as some of the costs you talk about for them living in the country undocumented.

Now, I agree to much of the second half of this argument, but I reject the first sentence which seems like an open door policy seemingly solidified in the next argument.

2)

Here's a plan: Not only make the naturalization/work visa process easier, faster and cheaper, but also encourage people from worst countries to immigrate here. When the governments of those countries see their people leaving en mass, they will be forced to do something about their own country to make it appealing for the people that are holding the country up instead of making the country appealing to those that are exploiting the people.

This would be noble, but self destructive.. We don't need millions of people coming here.. I don't have a problem with making things easier, but I firmly don't believe we should just accept every applicant, or open the flood gates as you will. And this is where the environment debate started to kick in.

3)
I responded with:

Though I understand your Position here, I don't agree to a doors wide open policy.Also, I think you are not really informed on what kind of environmental effect that would have here because they do end up owning property, and homes. California has been constantly building new schools for example..It does lead to unnecessary urban development and the disappearance of our natural habitats.

4) Davin Wrote:

As far as overpopulation and environmental effects are concerned we can compare the population of the U.S. per square mile to the population per square mile of other countries that are successful in controlling pollution, places to live and many other things.

The U.S. has an estimated population of 309 million people with 3.79 million square miles of land, England has an estimated 51.446 million people on 50,436 square miles of land. U.S. pop per sq mile about: 81.53, England pop per sq mile about: 1020.03. We have a lot of filling up to do before we can even complain about overpopulation and the environmental affects associated with increased population. Maybe you're not very informed

Which is far different than:

I believe it was Davin, who of course is continuing the rant below on the issue without understanding that America is not England, and nor should England be an example of what America should have to be like.. I don't think Davin is getting the overall point that we shouldn't have to live like sardines in our own country just so illegals can come plant their seeds here.

Which is why I said: No, if you actually read what I typed then you'd have my position correct.

Right here was a completely dishonest argument giving that England's Loss of habitat and reserves is in the broad sense ridiculous.. 8% in itself shows the failure of your argument.. When England manages to get their Natural reserves back over 60%, and completely repair their biodiversity you let me know..Until then your example is a prime example of over population and it's impacts on the environment.  To me your England example is like the Hawaii example, screwed up to the point where they are forced fix it or lose it all. So my point always has been that America shouldn't have to become like England in order to keep it's natural reserves just so you can have that door wide open to encourage every living being we could possible get to come here from other countries.. If you don't understand my position against your argument by now, It's not I that has failed to read.

So England having more national park reserves percentage than America is England is doing it wrong compared to America. Of the 150 million acres of protected land and 58 national parks in the U.S., that only covers 8.6% of the US, compared to the 8.8% and (will be 10.1% this year) that England has protected. If you're saying that England is not the way we should go, then should we go the other way and start giving up our protected land? So how is the argument dishonest? When I listed the National Park Reserves of England, I also listed the years they were created, which shows that England has been protecting more and more land as time goes on instead of what you keep saying that they're losing more and more land.

Yes, England's blunders may teach us ways to better conserve space, but it's not going to conserve on consumption and waste. It's not going to change the fact that England is a bad example of over population and environment.. They are a good example of lessons to be learned in what not to do, and what to do if you get into their position.. Well, America already comprehends this, and this is why Alaska, Yellow Stone, Red wood forests in CA, Hawaii ect are all protected.. America's biggest problem is Farming to feed the rest of the world who either can't feed themselves from their own natural resources , or have over populated to where their natural resources can't provide them to sustain them.. That cuts into our own habitat loss, and other nations habitat loss that provide such resource exports. Corn being the United States largest export on average to which consumes massive amounts of natural habitat.

England may have made blunders in the past, but now they're ahead of the U.S.: higher population density and a higher percentage of land protected. My only point with this, is that your point that a higher population must mean poor conservation choices is not true based on a country with a higher population density preserving a higher percentage of land. That doesn't mean you should agree with me, it just means I have a case that disproves your point.

Concerning England's natural Reserves, here is where I got my information from:
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwor ... fault.aspx

There are currently 224 NNRs in England (and one Marine Nature Reserve, Lundy) with a total area of over 94,400 hectares, which is approximately 0.6% of the country’s land surface. The largest is The Wash NNR, covering almost 8,800 hectares, whilst Horn Park Quarry in Dorset, at 0.32 hectares, is the smallest.

So is it correct that the total number of hectares is 94,000 (365 sq mi) or did I miss read that for just the Marine Nature Reserve? .. I'm only curious to this point of the total current number giving I would have expected Natural England to have up to date figures.. Wiki didn't even have the correct info: "879 square kilometres" (339 sq mi's).. My argument wasn't miss leading or dishonest vs out of date.. Cheers on the update to 8%.. Better, but far from even remotely acceptable.. The only thing positive I get out of your caparison is what high density population end up having to do to cope with their over population problems, and bad decisions that might be of useful insight. My argument stated that I really don't care to see America end up like England, especially considering here in America, higher population never translates to high rise apartments vs urban sprawl.. America has been up for sale for ages, and it's purchasable property to pretty much anyone foreign or domestic.

Interesting: "higher population never translates to high rise apartments vs urban sprawl" and by "never" I suppose you're excluding New York City, L.A., Phoenix and Seattle right? I only mention those because I've lived in and/or near each one of those cities which have high rise apartments due to the amount of people that want to be near the downtown area for jobs and other things. Now instead of just assuming something again, why don't you provide the numbers of growth in a city vs. it's suburbs and the amount of high rise apartments. Because without the data I can only take your point as yet another baseless assumption.

So I rejected your argument from which this all stems from Davin.

You can reject any argument you want, but assuming that any one's argument comes from me without them explicitly stating it is an assumption, you make a lot of them.

We don't need or want everyone coming here. We also don't need or want a 1000 ppl per mi populous.. Open door policy is a bad idea.. End of story.

If you read what I said, if we got to 1000 people per square mile, we'd have half of the worlds population. Given that last year about 750,000 legal immigrants came to the U.S. and 250,000 illegal immigrants, my "open door policy" wouldn't likely get too much more than that. It would take at least 100 years to double the population from immigration that way, let alone getting up to 1000 people per square mile. In the meantime, the countries they came from would either fix themselves or die off to be replaced until they're replaced by something better. Of course I don't really think that would work out like that, but I do think that making the process easier, cheaper and faster would at least make most of the illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and because we're already supporting that many, it wouldn't really be a problem.

Davin actually tries to defend a very poor example to the point of claiming that they could happily live with 3 billion people in a country about the size of Wisconsin LOL..

I never said this or anything close to this. Seriously though: how well can you read? I only ask this because instead of talking about what I type you very often talk about something else while seemingly responding to what I said. This "claiming that they could happily live with 3 billion people in a country about the size of Wisconsin LOL." Is a good example of you responding to something I have never said. Because if you can read and understand just fine, then the problem is somewhere out of my control.

Oh? You mean this didn't magically come out of your typing fingers?

we can keep and/or expand national parks while still increasing our population 10 times what it is now (that's 3.09 billion, close to half the current world's population).

I am seemingly responding to you in equivalent argument vs quoting you Davin.. Apparently I can read. Nor was that talking about something else vs putting into context in how ridiculous it would be to have 3 billion people in the land mass not bigger than Wisconsin or Minnesota. That's just insane.

Apparently you can't read and comprehend. Either that or you're taking what I said out of context intentionally to create a straw man. You kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should." And not once did I even mention anything about fitting 3 billion people into anything the size of Wisconsin.

No real American wants to take away freedom.

There is no such thing as true Freedom Davin, that's why you have laws to follow that take freedoms to bad things away.. Freedom is nothing more than a concept that doesn't really entirely exist out side of complete anarchy with the freedom to do whatever you wanted without consequence. Hence, individual freedoms are given up to support justice, and laws that govern and protect you. Granted there are some ridiculous laws that are indeed unjust.

You see TheJackel, those laws preventing people from doing "bad things" are in effect protecting the freedoms of others, the only way to protect the greatest amount of freedoms is to limit a few things that people can do. So in effect the laws protect more freedom than they take away. TheJackel, even in total anarchy there are consequences to ones actions, those are the things that happen after one performs an action. You see TheJackel, every action has a consequence, that consequence is good, bad or neutral.

however, federal laws are hardly unjust

I'm a let you finish, but let me just say that just because it's a federal law, doesn't mean that it's a just law. Making a law federal doesn't magically mean that it becomes just. If they made selling alcohol illegal on a federal level, that wouldn't make the law just, just now instead of regularly ridiculous it's federally ridiculous.

, nor is the deportation of those who break them, should deportation be the action taken.. If I broke any of those laws, you wouldn't see anyone crying about it, calling it racism, or call out the demonizing of my character would you?

Don't know, and I don't care.

If I were to commit employment fraud, I would go straight to jail or pay a hefty fine.

Not if you weren't caught, the ones that get caught often face the same penalty; before deportation they serve time.

Seriously, if they can't respect this country enough to obey the laws to begin with, we don't want them here.. And no country would want me in their country either if I had crossed their boarders while breaking their laws doing so.  If they can't get here legally, too bad, I wish them best of luck and good fortunes in their own countries.

If the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?
If the immigration standards said no poor people would you support that?
If the immigration standards said only men are allowed in would you support that?

Right now, with the cost of the system, it weeds out the poor people that can't afford it, because it takes a good understanding of the process it limits out those that are less educated and in third world countries, that's mostly women. Of course the racist thing isn't really true in any reasonable sense I can think of, I just think this: it's illegal so fuck 'em attitude might change a little bit if the immigration standards were clearly racist.

[TheJackel]

You can reject any argument you want, but assuming that any one's argument comes from me without them explicitly stating it is an assumption, you make a lot of them.

As do you, especially considering urban sprawl.. Even California's projections show urban sprawling.. :/..

You see TheJackel, those laws preventing people from doing "bad things" are in effect protecting the freedoms of others, the only way to protect the greatest amount of freedoms is to limit a few things that people can do. So in effect the laws protect more freedom than they take away.

No shit, really? And you say I have reading comprehension problems? Read my post above again and rethink your statement here. All you did here was reword my entire point.. Hence, there is only freedom of allowance, or what you are given freedom to do without legal consequence.. There is no such thing as true freedom..  And sorry, in Anarchy there is the much higher probability of no consequence.. Someone could kill someone else and just walk away without any investigation by a governing authority, or consequence. Yes there is always the probability of consequence, but in Anarchy whats to stop someone from randomly sniping people across the country for example? What law enforcement is going to go after them, investigate to find out who they are and where they are in a chaotic system? Thus, in a place of Anarchy you could snipe someone from 100 yards off a roof top without even being seen, or even possibly heard. Nor would you be having to worry about packing up and fleeing the scene to avoid capture. But I agree, there is always potential consequence, and that is why I positioned that freedom is subjective allowance. Your argument didn't change my points at all.

TheJackel, even in total anarchy there are consequences to ones actions, those are the things that happen after one performs an action. You see TheJackel, every action has a consequence, that consequence is good, bad or neutral.

So if I sniped someone from 100 yards at night from a roof top I would have a consequence to that action? Well firstly, no police would mean I wouldn't have to worry about fleeing or legal consequences correct? And in a City the echo of a single shot would make it impossible to figure out where it came from, especially if it were silenced. I could just walk away without consequence if I were some cold evil murderer that just randomly pops people off from a 100 yards. Hell, would an anarchy system even have news channels? And yes, there is always the probability of consequence..

I'm a let you finish, but let me just say that just because it's a federal law, doesn't mean that it's a just law. Making a law federal doesn't magically mean that it becomes just. If they made selling alcohol illegal on a federal level, that wouldn't make the law just, just now instead of regularly ridiculous it's federally ridiculous.

Let's play this game.. Are these laws just or unjust to which protect our Identities and borders?.. So instead of playing the passive argument that federal laws can be federally ridiculous, you can tell me why you think that fraud, employment fraud, and ID theft magically fit into that category of "federally ridiculous".. Otherwise don't bother making such a ridiculous argument.

Don't know, and I don't care.

Apparently you don't care, but many of us do. And those who become victims of those who break these laws care more than you obviously do.

Not if you weren't caught, the ones that get caught often face the same penalty; before deportation they serve time.

I don't even consider that prison time if they are just placed in holding till deportation, and that price is what they pay for just crossing the border knowing they could be deported.. Now if they are actually handed down a prison sentence for the Federal crimes they break, and then deported, it would still be a just ruling. They know the risks when crossing the border, these people make that choice. I wouldn't expect any less of a sentence for myself should I have been in the same position as an illegal alien.  

If the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

Why would it say no Brazilians? Are you trying to turn this argument into targeting of specific nationalities argument? Hence you are dishonestly trying to change the dynamics of this argument to suit your position?

If the immigration standards said no poor people would you support that?
If the immigration standards said only men are allowed in would you support that?

Again you are dishonestly trying to change the dynamics of this argument.. Sounds like you are trying to play the anti-semetic position knowing the immigration standards don't specifically target people. Sure it could be miss-used to do so as any other law could be.. Lastly, you make this false argument knowing I wouldn't support specific targeting.. The way I look at it is that everyone has an equal chance of legally getting accepted to immigrate here through the legal channels. If you get denied, to bad, and we should have the right to control the flow of immigration whether or not you are Brazilian, Mexican, Egyptian, Asian, Korean, An Iranian, Australian, or some Irish person..

My parents could have been denied and I would still respect that..Hence, I could be in Brazil right now instead of the United States.. My life could be better or worse, but in either case it's not the United States job to take care of me, or even their obligation to accept me as an immigrant..

Right now, with the cost of the system, it weeds out the poor people that can't afford it, because it takes a good understanding of the process it limits out those that are less educated and in third world countries, that's mostly women. Of course the racist thing isn't really true in any reasonable sense I can think of, I just think this: it's illegal so fuck 'em attitude might change a little bit if the immigration standards were clearly racist.

They aren't clearly racist, if they were, there wouldn't be any Brazilians here, or even Muslims giving the fear mongering in the media.. And yet, here in Boston we a lot of legal Muslim immigrants who are very nice people. The Fuck them attitude is only the impolite way to say if you break the law, you are subject to it as much as I am.. Hence, if I were to break the law and get caught, Fuck me for breaking it.. Thus I deserve to be sentenced according to the law.

Now I agree that some laws are ridiculous, and in many countries the penalties are unfair or absurd.. You could attempt to argue that the penalties for breaking federal crimes is absurd or unfair.. But, you will need to come up with something you think is fair.. I came up with a pretty damn overly nice argument on what could be done to resolve many of the issues without deportation.. And I don't think illegals realize that they have the option to voice a means to broker a fair solution. However, many don't because that would involve taking responsibility for their actions vs just magically being granted amnesty with a free pass without resolving the problems to the system and other peoples lives to which they may have caused..

[McQ]

Although I have no desire to post to this topic any more, I find that even with some of the low blows that have been dealt (like, "apparently you can't read or comprehend" - and which I'm sure will not continue, right?), that this is a fascinating topic to read. I'm actually enjoying it. As long as the parties involved keep to the arguments at hand and away from ad homs, this will be a topic of considerable learning potential. This is a complex issue, with no easy explanations or answers, but one worth discussing.

Thanks to you all who have put much effort and thought into it.

[Davin]

However, countering your argument with England vs America..[Edited out for addressing a large chunk of text]

The England example is an example that even in high population densities, the people still preserve their land. I don't care to defend a position I don't hold.

If you read what I said, if we got to 1000 people per square mile, we'd have half of the worlds population. Given that last year about 750,000 legal immigrants came to the U.S. and 250,000 illegal immigrants, my "open door policy" wouldn't likely get too much more than that.

Here you don't even bother to think of people having children, and personally, that is way to many people coming here a year. Do these people locally consume and produce waste? How much do they add to local landfills?

Again, the example was a counter to your position, the posts are long enough and I'm not going to write something about every single possible counter example you might possibly give, so please stop saying things like "Here you don't even bother to think of people having children[...]" when you don't even know that I hadn't. I was talking about immigration, child birth is a different topic. I didn't mention the death rate either, that doesn't mean I didn't even think about it, it just means I didn't mention it and it has little to do with what I'm talking about.

At best, speculative conjecture..This is likely to occur regardless over time.

Yes, I accept it as merely speculative conjecture, never have I stated that it would work or ever said anything like "you're just ignoring the evidence" just because someone disagrees with it.

Apparently you can't read and comprehend. Either that or you're taking what I said out of context intentionally to create a straw man.

Uhh NO!, what you write is subjective to interpretation.

The point is that you keep arguing against things I don't say and say I say things completely different than what I said.

You kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should."

Back peddling isn't going to help you here because realistically that can be interpreted as your point of view..Suggesting  "We Can" is more than suggestive enough to be interpreted in a context as "We Can so why not".. Your arguments had a very clear underlining tone to which highly suggests an open door policy or point of view.

That is in no way back peddling. For it to be back peddling, it would have to be a position I held, it wasn't a position I held. It was an example that counters what you stated.

I figured you were still talking about England.. For some reason I thought you meant England could have a population density of 3 billion.. If you were referring the the United states, I would then agree with your above statement.. However, That would be insane irregardless ..

Yes it would be insane.

No shit, really? [...]

They weren't intended to change your point on this, you said something very obvious, so I returned with something very obvious.

however, federal laws are hardly unjust

I'm a let you finish, but let me just say that just because it's a federal law, doesn't mean that it's a just law. Making a law federal doesn't magically mean that it becomes just. If they made selling alcohol illegal on a federal level, that wouldn't make the law just, just now instead of regularly ridiculous it's federally ridiculous.

Let's play this game.. Are these laws just or unjust to which protect our Identities and borders?.. So instead of playing the passive argument that federal laws can be federally ridiculous, you can tell me why you think that fraud, employment fraud, and ID theft magically fit into that category of "federally ridiculous".. Otherwise don't bother making such a ridiculous argument.

The statement is by no means a defense of fraud, identity theft and/or protecting borders, it's just a response to your blanket statement "federal laws are hardly unjust."

Don't know, and I don't care.

Apparently you don't care, but many of us do. And those who become victims of those who break these laws care more than you obviously do.

No, it's just I got bored of trying to point out to you yet another example of you arguing against something I didn't say.

If the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

Why would it say no Brazilians? Are you trying to turn this argument into targeting of specific nationalities argument? Hence you are dishonestly trying to change the dynamics of this argument to suit your position?

No, I was just giving an example that if the policies were unjust, that although it wouldn't mean that we just get rid of it all together, we would change the polices.

Right now, with the cost of the system, it weeds out the poor people that can't afford it, because it takes a good understanding of the process it limits out those that are less educated and in third world countries, that's mostly women. Of course the racist thing isn't really true in any reasonable sense I can think of, I just think this: it's illegal so fuck 'em attitude might change a little bit if the immigration standards were clearly racist.

They aren't clearly racist, if they were, there wouldn't be any Brazilians here, or even Muslims giving the fear mongering in the media.. And yet, here in Boston we a lot of legal Muslim immigrants who are very nice people. The Fuck them attitude is only the impolite way to say if you break the law, you are subject to it as much as I am.. Hence, if I were to break the law and get caught, Fuck me for breaking it.. Thus I deserve to be sentenced according to the law.

In Arizona, there is a law that says a home can't contain more than three dildoes, I would find it hard to believe that any one would think that fining a person for breaking this law would be at all reasonable. In Idaho there's a law that says a person younger than 16 can't masturbate, I'd think that people would have enough sense not to go around sending 14 year olds to Juvenile Detention just because they shook their third leg too much. The point I'm making is that just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's a just law. And just because someone breaks a law, doesn't mean they deserve punishment. The point of that is to have you only discuss why you support a law and not just say "they broke the law, they deserve to be punished." Unless you hold the position that each and every breach of each and every law demands punishment no matter how ridiculous the law is.

Now I agree that some laws are ridiculous, and in many countries the penalties are unfair or absurd.. You could attempt to argue that the penalties for breaking federal crimes is absurd or unfair.. But, you will need to come up with something you think is fair.. I came up with a pretty damn overly nice argument on what could be done to resolve many of the issues without deportation.. And I don't think illegals realize that they have the option to voice a means to broker a fair solution. However, many don't because that would involve taking responsibility for their actions vs just magically being granted amnesty with a free pass without resolving the problems to the system and other peoples lives to which they may have caused..

I agree with this, they need to reasonably pay for the harm they have caused. I only say reasonably because I wouldn't want to take more than a quarter of someone's income, especially if they're not making that much.

Most my problems with this discussion is what I have noted: that you keep arguing against things I have not ever stated was my position, you bring up other things into a point I'm making instead of addressing the point and you keep using condescending language. If all that stopped, we could have a much cleaner, more efficient and less messy argument. As it is right now, I can hardly even get out what my positions are because I'm mostly pointing out that you're arguing against things I haven't even said, and positions I don't hold. Sometimes people aren't against your position when they question you; sometimes they want to know more, know how it effects certain situations and/or many other possibilities.

[Davin]

Although I have no desire to post to this topic any more, I find that even with some of the low blows that have been dealt (like, "apparently you can't read or comprehend" - and which I'm sure will not continue, right?), that this is a fascinating topic to read. I'm actually enjoying it. As long as the parties involved keep to the arguments at hand and away from ad homs, this will be a topic of considerable learning potential. This is a complex issue, with no easy explanations or answers, but one worth discussing.

Thanks to you all who have put much effort and thought into it.

I have for most this discussion, been explaining all the various times that TheJackel had been asking me to defend positions I don't hold. it would be nice to get some kind of support for having an honest argument, not to just come in after pages of me asking TheJackel to stop doing it. Moderators had clearly been against the same kind of argument tactics that TheJackel is using when it concerned religious topics. I'm not bringing this up to defend my statement that you quoted, I'm bringing it up because I see a problem with not applying the same standards to all arguments. How can one say that a religious zealot can't do something when others are allowed to? In other threads TheJackel uses similar condescending language, however it's backed up with evidence, I don't have a problem with that. It's just when there's no evidence, there's no reason to assume that someone is ignoring it. I had refrained from using the same type of language that I kept asking TheJackel to stop using, however after several pages of TheJackel being allowed to use that type of language, I hardly think that now is the best time to come in and ask it all to stop just because I finally started to mimic it.

In short, I find there is a discrepancy here. We should hold all members to the same standards, not allow those who you stated that you agree with to go around doing that which has resulted in others being banned. If you like the argument, wouldn't it be a better argument if I wasn't constantly being asked to defend against things I didn't even say?

Now to defend my statement: it wasn't an ad hominem, I demonstrated several times where TheJackel had stated that I held a position I never even hinted that I held. TheJackel stated that he/she could read just fine but also wasn't intentionally creating straw mans. There are pages of evidence to support my position that there is a comprehension problem. So by all logical means, it wasn't an ad hominem.

 I hardly think it's any different than what TheJackel had been stating about me and others.

[TheJackel]

when you don't even know that I hadn't. I was talking about immigration, child birth is a different topic. I didn't mention the death rate either, that doesn't mean I didn't even think about it, it just means I didn't mention it and it has little to do with what I'm talking about.

We are talking about the impacts of immigration on the United States. yes or no? bearing children has everything to do with the impacts immigration has on this Nation. Thus child birth is on topic in accordance to this discussion Davin. It has everything to do with population growth, consumption, waste, urban sprawl, potential loss of habitat ect.. 750,000 immigrants are bound to equally be in the process of reproduction as the rest of us are (yes this is being obvious, sorry).. I am trying to look at the overall big picture Davin.. So I don't think we are on the same page here. Thus think Butterfly Effect.

Yes, I accept it as merely speculative conjecture, never have I stated that it would work or ever said anything like "you're just ignoring the evidence" just because someone disagrees with it.

What evidence have I ignored? I do believe I even stood corrected on some some evidence to which you accused me of intentionally manipulating vs realizing my sources were either out dated or my calculations were off.  50 million people in England need food, and they get it from farms either locally, or imported. I agreed with the fact that you can increase population density, but doesn't prevent urban sprawling. Also, here in America its not so easily done.. Hence, you would have to force people to give up their homes and properties to build high rise apartments and then make them live in them, It's not going to happen here in America any time soon. This is where I think you didn't listen to my argument. So I am looking at the reality of the situation and not basing it on a plausible answer to a problem that will also fail over time giving that population growth continues to grow.. It's like what will England do when it's Population exceeds 300 million? Population density is not going to make the need for food go away, or prevent small towns from growing.

The point is that you keep arguing against things I don't say and say I say things completely different than what I said.

Again, your arguments are subject to interpretation.. It's like you make arguments and then expect that everyone is going to not read into them.. Many of your arguments can be considered very suggestive.. Using "We can" for example can be read into as suggesting we should even if you don't specifically state that "we should". If you are just making counter arguments for the sake of making them, then all you are doing is trying to pick an argument without even clearly stating your actual position. Really, how do you expect people to read "We can" and not have it come off as seemingly stating a position?. The other cases seemingly come from not being on the same page because you are obviously seeing a different overall picture than I am in regards to this issue..  

You kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should."

No, I read into that as you being suggestive.. And my arguments never stated that increasing population meant giving up protected land (though it can, and in many cases does) vs simply giving up land. Building materials, and food don't come out of the sky. Nor do places to pile up our waste magically have infinite spatial volume. Yes, we can increase population density, but my argument has always been that this will not equate to the halting of urban sprawling, or loss of habitat. That's a fact, and it's greatly effected by the size of the population because population size effects how much environmental impact there will be. Efficiency to minimize habitat loss is best to be described as your counter argument.  And much of why England can increase it's Natural reserves is because it now imports much of everything it requires to function from other places like the United States. Hence, England is relying on other Nations resources even though I would say England still provides a good chunk of what they need themselves.. This is entirely contrasted compared to America (in terms of import and exportation of resources), and why your argument is unrealistic even though I agree that increasing population density is a logical temporary solution to the problem.. Hence, it's not going to resolve the fact that 46% of they worlds natural habitat is agriculture..  
 
Wiki:

Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. It also depends on the way resources are used and distributed throughout the population If a given environment has a population of 10 individuals, but there is food or drinking water enough for only 9, then in a closed system where no trade is possible, that environment is overpopulated; if the population is 100 but there is enough food, shelter, and water for 200 for the indefinite future, then it is not overpopulated. Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates due to medical advances, from an increase in immigration, or from an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources. It is possible for very sparsely populated areas to be overpopulated, as the area in question may have a meager or non-existent capability to sustain human life (e.g. the middle of the Sahara Desert).

This sums up my argument nicely, and my stated position to which you perhaps either didn't get, or chose to ignore. Tossing out counter arguments in the form of population density is not going resolve the issue of habitat loss, and  environmental impacts what-so-ever. Immigration effects all these areas.. And where is America going to import resources from if it can't sustain itself while exporting to places that also can't sustain themselves?. So all I am asking you to do Davin is realize that there will without a doubt be major local environmental impacts here in the States is Immigration is not kept under control.

That is in no way back peddling. For it to be back peddling, it would have to be a position I held, it wasn't a position I held. It was an example that counters what you stated.

So all you are doing then is just tossing around counter arguments for the sake of counter arguing without bothering to state a position.. We can or could do a lot of things, so what exactly is your position of what we should do then? What exactly is your position?  

Yes it would be insane.

Agreed.. So we should have total control over immigration to helps us control it's impacts, and potential impacts.

They weren't intended to change your point on this, you said something very obvious, so I returned with something very obvious.

Was redundancy to required? I don't think an obvious argument required to be made more obvious, thus a simple agreement would have sufficed since there is no point in making arguments just for the sake of making them.

The statement is by no means a defense of fraud, identity theft and/or protecting borders, it's just a response to your blanket statement "federal laws are hardly unjust."

Then your entire counter argument was entirely irrelevant to the discussion and has no barring on the argument in regards to illegal immigration and the federal laws governing them.. Thus it appears you are tossing out irrelevant arguments just for the sake of arguing, and this is especially true after the fact that we had already covered this many pages back to where I replied that these Federal laws are not like some stupid law to which my state that it would be illegal to wear red shoes.. So why are you instigating useless irrelevant arguments?

So why would you bother to toss in the notion that "just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's illegal?".. So what exactly are you referring to, or trying to imply in regards to this and illegal immigration? It would be nice to get some clarification here, or maybe for you to actually state your position.

No, it's just I got bored of trying to point out to you yet another example of you arguing against something I didn't say.

From what I can tell, most of what you say is suggestive and never clearly states your position.. So what are you trying to say? Clarify your position without using counter suggestive counter arguments.

If the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

This is a perfect example of a suggestive argument.. And completely irrelevant to what's being discussed. So what was your position or point here? What does this have to do with the impacts of immigration, or illegal immigration here in the United States when it clearly doesn't have anything to do with any of the immigration laws?

No, I was just giving an example that if the policies were unjust, that although it wouldn't mean that we just get rid of it all together, we would change the polices.

Well, they aren't..So why are you bothering with this? It's not even worth arguing about because I think it would be obvious that if I thought a policy was unjust, I would consider it in need of being changed.. I don't find any policy thus far on the books in regards to immigration, or illegal immigration as unjust.. In fact our immigration policy is incredibly lenient compared to many other nations. So unless you want to discuss what exactly you think is unjust about our immigration laws, please don't bother tossing in circular arguments that don't pertain to the discussion. Otherwise it's suggestive in the way that I could mistaken your argument here as your position on the Federal laws governing our immigration policies.

In Arizona, there is a law that says a home can't contain more than three dildoes, I would find it hard to believe that any one would think that fining a person for breaking this law would be at all reasonable. In Idaho there's a law that says a person younger than 16 can't masturbate, I'd think that people would have enough sense not to go around sending 14 year olds to Juvenile Detention just because they shook their third leg too much. The point I'm making is that just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's a just law. And just because someone breaks a law, doesn't mean they deserve punishment. The point of that is to have you only discuss why you support a law and not just say "they broke the law, they deserve to be punished." Unless you hold the position that each and every breach of each and every law demands punishment no matter how ridiculous the law is.

Again please note why this is irrelevant...

So I am going to ask you a simple question.. Are the Federal laws that protect our Identities, defend against fraud, or govern immigration unjust?  Yes, No?

Most my problems with this discussion is what I have noted: that you keep arguing against things I have not ever stated was my position, you bring up other things into a point I'm making instead of addressing the point and you keep using condescending language. If all that stopped, we could have a much cleaner, more efficient and less messy argument. As it is right now, I can hardly even get out what my positions are because I'm mostly pointing out that you're arguing against things I haven't even said, and positions I don't hold. Sometimes people aren't against your position when they question you; sometimes they want to know more, know how it effects certain situations and/or many other possibilities.

What we need to do is get on the same page, and the problem is that we seemingly have two different pictures in our heads on this subject that are not meshing well.

[Davin]

when you don't even know that I hadn't. I was talking about immigration, child birth is a different topic. I didn't mention the death rate either, that doesn't mean I didn't even think about it, it just means I didn't mention it and it has little to do with what I'm talking about.

We are talking about the impacts of immigration on the United States. yes or no? bearing children has everything to do with the impacts immigration has on this Nation. Thus child birth is on topic in accordance to this discussion Davin. It has everything to do with population growth, consumption, waste, urban sprawl, potential loss of habitat ect.. 750,000 immigrants are bound to equally be in the process of reproduction as the rest of us are (yes this is being obvious, sorry).. I am trying to look at the overall big picture Davin.. So I don't think we are on the same page here. Thus think Butterfly Effect.

Right... I was making a point, we can't always discuss things in the big picture. For you to assume I didn't think about something before making my statement is wrong, for you to discuss something other than my point is bad form and for you to not get that after I clearly explained it is simply amazing.

Yes, I accept it as merely speculative conjecture, never have I stated that it would work or ever said anything like "you're just ignoring the evidence" just because someone disagrees with it.

What evidence have I ignored?[edited for brevity]

I just said that I never had said anything like that. I would never say anything like that unless I presented evidence. When I present an argument from speculation, I accept it as speculation. As well as accepting any other point of view that counters it without the condescending language that you use when you have no evidence to support your speculation.

The point is that you keep arguing against things I don't say and say I say things completely different than what I said.

Again, your arguments are subject to interpretation..

Yes they are, however just because you can assume incorrectly doesn't mean that you're justified to do it.

It's like you make arguments and then expect that everyone is going to not read into them..

Reading into another's argument is a sure way to be wrong about their position. Just discuss what they say, not what you assume.

Many of your arguments can be considered very suggestive..

I'm not responsible for another's assumptions, only what I say. It's unreasonable for you to assume something different than what another person said, then blame them for your assumption.

You kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should."

No, I read into that as you being suggestive.. And my arguments never stated that increasing population meant giving up protected land (though it can, and in many cases does) vs simply giving up land.

Well stop reading into it as me being suggestive and take it for what it says. Honestly how can I reasonably predict what you will assume about what I say? I can't find anyway to be sure about what you'll assume about what I say, so how about this: you just discuss what I say. You stated and we discussed about how higher populations meant destroying the environment and listed off many things talking about protected land and quite a bit about how England doesn't protect their natural habitats. Those are things you said, so I was discussing it.

This sums up my argument nicely, and my stated position to which you perhaps either didn't get, or chose to ignore.

If I've misunderstood your argument then please explain where I've said you meant something other than what you said.

That is in no way back peddling. For it to be back peddling, it would have to be a position I held, it wasn't a position I held. It was an example that counters what you stated.

So all you are doing then is just tossing around counter arguments for the sake of counter arguing without bothering to state a position.. We can or could do a lot of things, so what exactly is your position of what we should do then? What exactly is your position?

You stated something against something I said, I gave an example that what you said is not necessarily true. I explained this in a previous post. Once you stop assuming things, then we can clean this argument up. However until you agree to to stop assuming things about what I say and keep what I say the context in which I say it, I don't see how I can even trust that you'll even discuss my position.

So why would you bother to toss in the notion that "just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's illegal?".. So what exactly are you referring to, or trying to imply in regards to this and illegal immigration? It would be nice to get some clarification here, or maybe for you to actually state your position.

I clearly stated why I tossed that point into the discussion.

No, it's just I got bored of trying to point out to you yet another example of you arguing against something I didn't say.

From what I can tell, most of what you say is suggestive and never clearly states your position.. So what are you trying to say? Clarify your position without using counter suggestive counter arguments.

What I say should be clear enough, stop assuming it's suggestive and just talk about what I say. I'm not interested in discussing what you assume about what I say, and I'm not going to defend against your assumptions.

If the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

This is a perfect example of a suggestive argument.. And completely irrelevant to what's being discussed. So what was your position or point here? What does this have to do with the impacts of immigration, or illegal immigration here in the United States when it clearly doesn't have anything to do with any of the immigration laws?

This is a perfect example of you assuming something other than what I clearly stated: "No, I was just giving an example that if the policies were unjust, that although it wouldn't mean that we just get rid of it all together, we would change the polices."

Again please note why this is irrelevant...

Read the last part where I said, "The point of that is to have you only discuss why you support a law and not just say "they broke the law, they deserve to be punished." Unless you hold the position that each and every breach of each and every law demands punishment no matter how ridiculous the law is."

So I am going to ask you a simple question.. Are the Federal laws that protect our Identities, defend against fraud, or govern immigration unjust?  Yes, No?

I think that the parts I already stated as being in need of correction are the parts that I think are unjust.

What we need to do is get on the same page, and the problem is that we seemingly have two different pictures in our heads on this subject that are not meshing well.

It would be easier to get onto the same page if I wasn't attempting to correct your assumptions for almost the entire discussion and you only discuss what I say when you're addressing what I say. That's all I'm asking: no more assumptions. Well not no assumptions entirely, just no assumptions about what I mean, what knowledge I have, what I've considered, what I really mean behind what I say, that I'm ignoring evidence... etc.

[McQ]

Although I have no desire to post to this topic any more, I find that even with some of the low blows that have been dealt (like, "apparently you can't read or comprehend" - and which I'm sure will not continue, right?), that this is a fascinating topic to read. I'm actually enjoying it. As long as the parties involved keep to the arguments at hand and away from ad homs, this will be a topic of considerable learning potential. This is a complex issue, with no easy explanations or answers, but one worth discussing.

Thanks to you all who have put much effort and thought into it.

I have for most this discussion, been explaining all the various times that TheJackel had been asking me to defend positions I don't hold. it would be nice to get some kind of support for having an honest argument, not to just come in after pages of me asking TheJackel to stop doing it. Moderators had clearly been against the same kind of argument tactics that TheJackel is using when it concerned religious topics. I'm not bringing this up to defend my statement that you quoted, I'm bringing it up because I see a problem with not applying the same standards to all arguments. How can one say that a religious zealot can't do something when others are allowed to? In other threads TheJackel uses similar condescending language, however it's backed up with evidence, I don't have a problem with that. It's just when there's no evidence, there's no reason to assume that someone is ignoring it. I had refrained from using the same type of language that I kept asking TheJackel to stop using, however after several pages of TheJackel being allowed to use that type of language, I hardly think that now is the best time to come in and ask it all to stop just because I finally started to mimic it.

In short, I find there is a discrepancy here. We should hold all members to the same standards, not allow those who you stated that you agree with to go around doing that which has resulted in others being banned. If you like the argument, wouldn't it be a better argument if I wasn't constantly being asked to defend against things I didn't even say?

Now to defend my statement: it wasn't an ad hominem, I demonstrated several times where TheJackel had stated that I held a position I never even hinted that I held. TheJackel stated that he/she could read just fine but also wasn't intentionally creating straw mans. There are pages of evidence to support my position that there is a comprehension problem. So by all logical means, it wasn't an ad hominem.

 I hardly think it's any different than what TheJackel had been stating about me and others.

Now who is using straw men? Davin, you assumed because I used ONE example of an inappropriate comment you made, and that I earlier agreed with some of The Jackel's points, that I'm on the Jackel's side in this. You are mistaken. I keep my responsibilities as moderator separate from my personal opinions in this forum, and a thorough look at my entire history over the years I've moderated here would demonstrate that. My comment was to all parties involved.

For you to make the accusation in the open forum is a mistake. Next time, send me a PM, and you will get a PM in response, rather than this.

I used the one obvious example that I saw of a person in this discussion focusing on dissing the other person rather than sticking to the arguments. I don't read every line of every thread in this entire forum. Yours was an ad hom whether you agree or not. If it makes you feel any better, my post was aimed at everyone participating in the thread, which is obvious (I implied that your one ad hom was just one of the "low blows that have been dealt"), asking ALL parties involved to keep it on the up and up.

You need to move on with this. You were not, until this moment, which you have brought on yourself, being singled out. I chose not to use every example of poor behavior. I also asked everyone to play nice in this thread.

Again, I'm asking everyone in this discussion to keep it civil, and even to make sure they are listening to one another, rather than trying to win an argument, which seems to be where most of the issues have arisen from.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What? I've seen just as many lazy immigrants.. Though most I would say work really well, and very hard.. I don't know very many people that would even suggest otherwise and it really a moot point.. And if they are legal and a harder worker they deserve the job over some lazy worker. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking for time off, you can't expect people to be work slaves and not enjoy their life, family, and friends.. Many companies have paid vacation, and Legal Seafood's makes me take it.

Obviously the charge is a popular one if immigrants feel the need to address it in this manner.

Also, I've no problem with time off for my employees, obviously.  But there is a difference between scheduled vacation and asking for a Friday night off every couple of weeks, and that's not to mention the kids that will call in sick if their request cannot be granted.

I agree that this is off the main point.    

When England manages to get their Natural reserves back over 60%, and completely repair their biodiversity you let me know.

Is this not Moving the Goalposts? After all, limiting immigration here in America won't "completely repair our biodiversity". Nor will limiting immigration (either legal or illegal) have any effect on protected acreage.

[quote="Jack"I never stated it would completely repair our biodiversity, please read my above post in regards to Davin's.. Controlling immigration is a control point to which we should have absolute control over, and this is of course includes many other control points that effect our biodiversity.. America simply should never reach the point where they have to be like England to fight for every inch in order to save their habitats and biodiversity. It's simply food for thought that we ought not become like England and work on solutions that prevent that.. So open door policy definitely is not a smart choice, but a bad choice in this regard.[/quote]

Arguing that a modern industrialized society should have more than 60% of its acreage protected is not only unrealistic, but irrelevant.  Protected acreage is not being reduced because of immigrant pressure, but rather corporate interests.

Also, by demanding that England "completely repair their biodiversity" (your words, not mine), you are now adding an extra condition to your acceptance of Davin's argument, and therefore, yes, you are certainly moving the goalposts.

[Sophus]

All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

[Thumpalumpacus]

All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

Federal governemnt will, I bet.  14th Amendment applies federal law to states, and this court will apply that reasoning to policies as well as laws, I predict.

[TheJackel]

All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

Federal governemnt will, I bet.  14th Amendment applies federal law to states, and this court will apply that reasoning to policies as well as laws, I predict.

I forgot about this thread :pop:

[Sophus]

All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

Federal governemnt will, I bet.  14th Amendment applies federal law to states, and this court will apply that reasoning to policies as well as laws, I predict.

It looks as though the experts agree with you, although I have to say it seems unstable ground to me because the fourteenth amenment applies to US citizens. How long do you suspect this will take to find out a verdict? Our government seems to operate in slow-mo.