Amnesty Dead for now!

[Jeffrey]

Americans would do the work… just not at such a low wage.

Della:

Tell me why this is so wonderful? I didn’t see anything intrinsically bad in the compromise the Senate had worked out. IMHO, trying to keep immigrant workers out of our country isn’t going to do anything except make illegals more desperate and harden the Mexican government even more against us. The reality is that those who come here every year to pick our crops and do other lowly tasks we Americans won’t do (which I think a shame when we have so many living on welfare and entitlements), need to be acknowledged for their contributions to our society instead of penalized for not being citizens.

 

[Lurch104]

Jeffrey:

Americans would do the work… just not at such a low wage.

And why are the wages so low? We have people sneaking into our country willing to work for 3rd wworld wages. We out outsourcing our high tech jobs to India, and we are insourcing our low tech jobs to Mexicans. We in the US are racing to the lowest standard of living. At this rate, we’ll be a third world country too.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Lurch104:

And why are the wages so low? We have people sneaking into our country willing to work for 3rd wworld wages. We out outsourcing our high tech jobs to India, and we are insourcing our low tech jobs to Mexicans. We in the US are racing to the lowest standard of living. At this rate, we’ll be a third world country too.

Yeah, it’s all the poor immigrants fault that we’re in a race to the bottom. Let’s not look at the people in charge and the corporatists who have been orchestrating and encouraging a lot of this.

 

[rlg94086]

I share your skepticism.

gilliam:

I’ll lay even money it won’t.

 

[Thekla]

MulusChristi:

Hallelujah! There is hope for the upholding the rule of law!

The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday, leaving in doubt prospects for passing a bill offering the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.

It’s odd to see anyone saying “Hallelujah” to the elimination of legislation that might give hope to families. There may be 12 million illegal aliens in this country, but they are immediate family to at least twice that number of legal citizens.

When people say that we should send the 12 million back, they make that “absolute” argument knowing that it would never happen. But by saying it, they get out of having to deal realistically with the problem. Amnesty is forgiveness. We do it all of the time. But why should we give our forgiveness to the wealthy? to the politicians? to the religious sinners? And we can’t find enough compassion as a people to forgive some of the poorest among us?

 

[Geldain]

Amnesty is another step down the road to lawlessness from where I sit.

Lawlessness = chaos where respect for human dignity is not possible.

Advocating the US permit the willful violation of our immigration laws under the guise of compassion, from where I sit is a grave matter since we are bound to follow our nation’s laws.

From where I sit, being happy that our laws might yet be upheld and enforced is a good thing.

Also, from where I sit, it’s hypocritical to expect our elected leaders to obey the law while allowing 11 million people who’ve already broken our laws off the hook under the guise of “what about their families”.

From where I sit, to suggest persons who wish to see our laws followed and adhered to aren’t compassionate or concerned for their fellow man is bearing false witness and a very grave matter.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Geldain:

From where I sit, to suggest persons who wish to see our laws followed and adhered to aren’t compassionate or concerned for their fellow man is bearing false witness and a very grave matter.

How convenient.

Question or criticize your point of view and one commits mortal sin. Question or criticize another you’re on the side of light and right and you’re upholding the faith.

Noted.

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

How convenient.

Question or criticize your point of view and one commits mortal sin.
Question or criticize another you’re on the side of light and right and you’re upholding the faith.

Noted.

This is a mischaracterization of what I said. And has been *noted *

Disagree with my point of view all you wish. Please so without being a demagogue. Otherwise your **are **bearing false witness and that is a grave matter.

 

[Thekla]

Geldain:

This is a mischaracterization of what I said. And has been *noted *

LCMS,

Yikes! Look out LCMS. What you’ve said has been noted. You know, you rarely if ever hear people on the left using the “condemnation of God” card, but it’s brandished as a tool by some on the right with great alacrity.

Keeping families together should be one of the top priorities for how we deal with the immigration problem. I have to laugh at some in the self-proclaimed family values crowd now suggesting that concern for these families is just a guise. It’s just sad to see actions that never seem to match their own perception of themselves. You could almost say it’s being delusional.

Thekla

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Thekla:

LCMS,

Yikes! Look out LCMS. What you’ve said has been noted. You know, you rarely if ever hear people on the left using the “condemnation of God” card, but it’s brandished as a tool by some on the right with great alacrity.

Isn’t that sad? What’s even funnier is that I’m not even on the left…or the right. I just pay attention to the Catechism (not just select portions but the whole thing). Remember…the line to the cafeteria forms to both the left AND the right.

Keeping families together should be one of the top priorities for how we deal with the immigration problem. I have to laugh at some in the self-proclaimed family values crowd now suggesting that concern for these families is just a guise. It’s just sad to see actions that never seem to match their own perception of themselves. You could almost say it’s being delusional.

Thekla

Family values are important only when useful as political bludgeons. I wish I could say what I think the real motivation behind a lot of this whole national debate on immigration…but to do so would be called “rude” and “uncharitable.” It would be true, though.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Geldain:

This is a mischaracterization of what I said. And has been *noted *

Disagree with my point of view all you wish. Please so without being a demagogue. Otherwise your **are **bearing false witness and that is a grave matter.

To disagree with your point of view would entail doing what you claim is a mortal sin…just as the false witness that you bear when you say that those who support a legalization plan support amnesty, thus lawlessness.

It works both ways. I’ve given the definition of amnesty in many places. The legalization plans have penalties in the form of monetary fines. The anti-reform side then says, well, then it’s a fee, not a fine so there’s no penalty, so it’s amnesty. Pull up the text of the bill that specifically says that there will be a fee to apply for the special visa and a fine once a waiver is granted giving lie to the amnesty charge and then the responses stop.

I wonder why?

Maybe it’s because your side of the argument is beyond reproach? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Changing the definition of words and the intent of the law to make it say what you want it to say doesn’t make it so, is intellectually dishonest and not fair play in the realm of debate.

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

To disagree with your point of view would entail doing what you claim is a mortal sin

To borrow from a great former President, "there you go again’, mischaracterizing my post. Look for the words mortal sin in my post. Not there are they?

…just as the false witness that you bear when you say that those who support a legalization plan support amnesty, thus lawlessness.

Another mischaracterization. I did not suggest supporting amnesty = supporting lawlessness. The word amnesty is not in my post.

It works both ways. I’ve given the definition of amnesty in many places. The legalization plans have penalties in the form of monetary fines. The anti-reform side then says, well, then it’s a fee, not a fine so there’s no penalty, so it’s amnesty. Pull up the text of the bill that specifically says that there will be a fee to apply for the special visa and a fine once a waiver is granted giving lie to the amnesty charge and then the responses stop.

From where I sit, until the border is secured, nothing much else matters. Till then, from where I sit, we need to enforce the laws on the books.

Maybe it’s because your side of the argument is beyond reproach?

Another mischaracterization. Are you familiar with the phrases “logical fallacy” or “fallacious arguments”?

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Changing the definition of words and the intent of the law to make it say what you want it to say doesn’t make it so, is intellectually dishonest and not fair play in the realm of debate.

From where I sit, based on this post and others, you apprear to excell at what you’ve just decried

 

[Ani_Ibi]

LCMS_No_More:

Isn’t that sad?

What part of “on topic” and “non-flammatory tone” do you not understand?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Geldain:

To borrow from a great former President, "there you go again’, mischaracterizing my post. Look for the words mortal sin in my post. Not there are they?

Conditions for mortal sin:

1. Knowledge
2. Willful intent
3. Grave matter

You said that it would be “grave matter” and "bearing false witness. That put your opponents “on notice” that if they do it, then they’re willfully and knowingly violating the 8th commandment in a “grave matter.”

Thus mortal sin.

Another mischaracterization. I did not suggest supporting amnesty = supporting lawlessness. The word amnesty is not in my post.

You said:

Amnesty is another step down the road to lawlessness from where I sit.

This says that supporting amnesty is supporting going down the road to lawlessness (where you sit Sorry, couldn’t resist).

From where I sit, until the border is secured, nothing much else matters. Till then, from where I sit, we need to enforce the laws on the books.

You need to stand up more often…you sit in a lot of places.

Seriously, I have no problem with securing the border. Here’s the problem. There are insufficient border patrol agents to do the job and the technology is not being used where necessary. This is part of the reform package.

By the way, it’s wonderful to say, “we need to enforce the laws on the books,” but realistically not possible if there aren’t enough people to do the job. I work for Cal-OSHA and there aren’t nearly enough staff to fully fulfill Cal-OSHA’s mandates, so we prioritize. ICE is doing that.

Another mischaracterization. Are you familiar with the phrases “logical fallacy” or “fallacious arguments”?

Are you familiar with the word sarcasm?

From where I sit, based on this post and others, you apprear to excell at what you’ve just decried

Not. You’re the one that says that a fine is amnesty and that fines are fees.

I’ll give you a real life example of an amnesty. Here in California, we have been having what’s called a “tax amnesty” where people who are behind or haven’t paid their taxes can do so without late penalties…the penalties are completely forgiven, not changed or reduces…forgiven…just catch up on paying your State taxes and you’re home free. THAT is amnesty according to the definition.

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

This says that supporting amnesty is supporting going down the road to lawlessness (where you sit Sorry, couldn’t resist).

Acck you got me there. I thought I took that word out…

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

Conditions for mortal sin:

1. Knowledge
2. Willful intent
3. Grave matter

You said that it would be “grave matter” and "bearing false witness. That put your opponents “on notice” that if they do it, then they’re willfully and knowingly violating the 8th commandment in a “grave matter.”

Thus mortal sin.

But I would have to presume you had knowledge and were doing so deliberately. Since I’m not in your head–I can’t, wouldn’t and didn’t make that assertion

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Geldain:

But I would have to presume you had knowledge and were doing so deliberately. Since I’m not in your head–I can’t, wouldn’t and didn’t make that assertion

Oh, you’re a clever one.

 

[Troy7]

Geldain, from where is this place “you sit” This phrase you are fond of using denotes (at least to me) a very all knowing high altitude viewpoint of everything going on in the world that allows you the one and only correct perspective on all matters.

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

Are you familiar with the word sarcasm?

Sure am. When you use the emoticons I’ll even know you’re being sacarcastic.

You’re the one that says that a fine is amnesty and that fines are fees.

You must have me confused with someone else. I’ve never discussed the matter of fees or fines.

From where I sit–and I’m not going to stand while I type, mind you–rewarding people for breaking the law is never a good thing. The notion of amnesty strikes me as something besides forgiveness. If I want to forgive someone, I say, “I forgive you.”

But what sticks in my craw is the notion because there are families involved, that they’ve broken the law doesn’t appear to matter to some. According to some, it appears to be a get-out-of-being-deported card.

We’ve been arresting families in large and small numbers who’ve been involved with organized crime for decades now. Why? Because they broke the law. Were familes broken up? Where children deprived of one or both parents? Yes. Is it sad to see and read about? Yes. Do the lawbreakers still need to be held responsible for their actions? Yes.

{turn on whiney voice}“But Geldain, they came for a better life! You’re soooo mean to want them deported and their families ruined.”[whiney voice off}

No one forced these people to illgeally enter our nation. Well, except maybe for the flesh peddlers, of course. Anyway, to grant these people forgiveness or amnesty because we don’t want to exercise the effort to enforce our laws and deport them–is hypocritical in the extreme.

I also believe if people on both sides of the border expended 1/10 the effort to drive out the corrution in Mexico and all a real ecnonomy to develop, people wouldn’t be risking life and limb to break our laws and enter our country.

From where I sit, working to assist these *illgeal immigrants in fixing their own nation is the real compassionate thing to do.

We have 250 legal American citizens or more in the US. I think we have enough bodies to patrol the borders, deport those here illegally and show our compassion for these folks by helping them fiscally and diplomatically to fix their own nation.

 

[Geldain]

Troy7:

Geldain, from where is this place “you sit”

It’s a chair. It sits in front of my computer. I sit in it

This phrase you are fond of using denotes (at least to me) a very all knowing high altitude viewpoint of everything going on in the world that allows you the one and only correct perspective on all matters.

Wow, thanks for the high compliment. I don’t feel deserving of it. I mean, I can only speak from my viewpoint. Plus, our home does sit at sea level

However, I must disabuse you of the notion my opinion is the only correct perspective on anything. If I actually felt that way–I would tell you so, clearly. Then I would describe factually why it is/was so

Thanks for sharing your perspective on me. Perhaps you’ll contribute to the topic of the thread as well?