Pangloss Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I was just perusing the Internet and ran across a story that just struck me as kinda blatant in its bias. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5040372.stm But in order to come into effect, the plan must be reconciled with tougher anti-immigration measures backed by the House of Representatives, that insist all illegal immigration should be criminalised. Um, hello, is there something about the word "illegal" that is hard to understand? Oh no, god forbid we should criminalize those friendly, law-abiding illegals! Right-wing groups have protested against illegal immigrants, while millions of people marched in support of them last month. (cough) Wow. That's about as blatant as it gets, right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 lol. illegalising crime. I wish we'd do that in britain: there are far too many criminals around here. a few laws illegalising law-breaking ought to do the trick I liked this bit: Meanwhile, a group of US civilian volunteers that has been patrolling the Mexican border began last week building a fence along a section of the frontier.[...] Human rights groups have accused the group of xenophobia towards illegal immigrants - but the group denies this. wanting to keep the illegal immagrants out is xenophobic? The beeb is usually much better than this. in fact, this article, which is linked to from the one above, seems much better and unbiased (and it appears to have been hundereds of thousands that marched, not millions). [edit]from elsewhere on the bbc site: [/edit] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 the BBC article got me pretty agitated. talk about biased media sources... Millions marched? Yeah right... I don't understand how a supposedly 'hard news' story can denigrate citizens who are excercising their right to protect themselves, will sympathizing with criminals. It's mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 these "Ilegal" immigrants.... what`s their Crime exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 bypassing the legal immigration process, living in this country without proper identification and for many, holding forged documents (fake ID cards, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Actually, i found a few more refferences to 'criminalising' illegal immigration... maybe illegal immigration isn't currently a crime per se; rather, just not 'legal' as in not valid. After all, illegal immigrants are deported, not chucked in jail or fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 so they`ve been MADE Criminals then, they aren`t Actualy Criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 so they`ve been MADE Criminals then, they aren`t Actualy Criminals? nah... I disagree with Dak. Coming into this country without going through the proper process is illegal. People who break laws are criminals. However, the specific punishment for this crime is deportation, not imprisonment... which is good, because our prisons have enough illegals as it is (from commiting other crimes). Although, maybe implementing a fine isn't such a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Although, maybe implementing a fine isn't such a bad idea. I think it`s a Silly idea. Why are they trying to move across the Border in the 1`st place? and actualy, Why shouldn`t they be Allowed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I think it`s a Silly idea. Why are they trying to move across the Border in the 1`st place? Many reasons' date=' mostly economic. and actualy, Why shouldn`t they be Allowed to? Many reasons... also mostly economic http://www.cis.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 so they`ve been MADE Criminals then, they aren`t Actualy Criminals? It's like the law which will "make" me a criminal if I walk into the Oval Office without being invited. I'm not actually a criminal, it was the dang law. Silly question: Does Britain not control immigration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 It's like the law which will "make" me a criminal if I walk into the Oval Office without being invited. I'm not actually a criminal, it was the dang law. If you try and get into the oval office, I'm sure the presidence security will treat you as a criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 "many reasons, mostly economic"..... can you see how the "fining them" part might be just a little silly? so it`s a bit like Drugs really, you grow your own pot and smoke it, You`re a Criminal, for no other reason that you`re Made to be such by a few stuffed suits in Power with Money *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 "many reasons' date=' mostly economic"..... can you see how the "fining them" part might be just a little silly? so it`s a bit like Drugs really, you grow your own pot and smoke it, You`re a Criminal, for no other reason that you`re Made to be such by a few stuffed suits in Power with Money *sigh*[/quote'] Your argument proves too much because all crimes are defined by statute; therefore, you can always argue that it was the legislature that makes a person a criminal instead of his actions in violating the statute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Just to be clear, have all illegal immigrants violated a part of criminal law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Your argument proves too much because all crimes are defined by statute; therefore, you can always argue that it was the legislature that makes a person a criminal instead of his actions in violating the statute. ok, so I`ll ask again, What have these people ACTUALY done wrong? I mean a statute that hazel eyed people should be shot on sight without question, How does That sit? Just arbitrary as any answer I`ve been given thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 I have no problem with people distinguishing between violent perpetrators and those who crossed the border illegally. I often drive my car in excess of the speed limit; doesn't mean I'm about to rob a bank. By all means, let's be fair to these people, in so far as they are human beings. Nobody's suggesting we through them into the nearest guillotine. What I have a problem with is the demonization of people who simply want to control access to their country. Great Britain controls its border. Why can't the US? Come on YT, isn't that position just a WEEEEE bit hypocritical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 The beeb is usually much better than this. [/edit] Yeah, no question about it. Some of you may recall me asking a couple of years ago about news sources, and ever since then I've been following BBC News off and on mainly due to the recommendations I got here. They really are the top shelf. More to the point, I don't condemn a news services just because a story now and then has a little bias. I've done that in the past (including on this board), and it's never really gotten me anywhere -- people have shown me the trap that lies in that reasoning pretty clearly. (chuckle) This one just stuck in my craw, so I thought I'd toss it out there and see if I was just off base or if this might be one of those cases. Sounds like some folks agree, which is cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 not at all hypocritical, and GB doesn`t control it`s borders anywhere NEAR as selectively as you guys do already, hence This it the country they all head towards. if we had a 10`th of of your Existing "border patrol" and policies, they may well stay in Europe (but Europe won`t accept then either). here they all get free homes, free furniture, dental care, medical care even curtains for their new home! I really don`t think you can Possibly compare the two at ALL! sorry dude, false premmis -- invalid arg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 I guess I shouldn't be surprised to hear that you have less than 10,000 people guarding your built-in moat. (shrug) So basically what you're saying is that you have a wide-open border in the UK. Anybody can come there, no rules, no controls, no questions asked, no papers necessary, free healthcare, free home, free furniture, dental care, medical care and even curtains. Interesting. Do they also get a job? (Edit: Wups, I forgot it's 10k in the Border Patrol.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 say what ya like, twist and strawman all you wish to also. it Still doesn`t answer My Question, does it? so if we Forget the UK and stick to the OP instead of Hijacking/Sidetracking. read my Prior posts and Answer them please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 GB doesn`t control it`s borders anywhere NEAR as selectively as you guys do already' date=' hence This it the country they all head towards.[/quote'] Getting back to the point, the quote above certainly supports my point that Great Britain does, in fact, control its borders, and therefore, surely, the United States has a right to control its borders as well. That's not a straw man, either -- it's a legitimate response to the point of this thread -- the BBC's allegation that only right-wingers want to control access to the United States. What I hadn't realized when I started this thread is that this bias is actually about talking to Brits about its own policies. They're preaching an ideological point, saying in effect that the UK is being too tough in its own immigration policy. So. Given that that policy (increased "tolerance" and opening up those borders, giving out all that free stuff) has resulted in an overwhelming influx of, what, 350,000 immigrants per year, and a dominating problem of "non-socially-adapting" individuals..... How would you say that policy is working out for you guys so far? Pretty well? Or not so much? I think you're wrong, YT -- the comparison is an excellent one! Thanks for bringing those points up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 ok, so I`ll ask again, What have these people ACTUALY done wrong? What's wrong, or what's illegal? Okay, I'll answer them both. 1) "What's illegal?" The answer to this question can be seen in the fact that your country doesn't allow people to enter without permission any more than mine does. If I want to come to the UK, I have to have a Passport. If I don't have one, I go home. If I manage to run past the Customs official, I am in violation of YOUR laws. What's so hard to understand about that? Why do you politicize that simple concept? 2) "What's wrong?" In my opinion there's nothing wrong with what they want. The only issue is one of whether we (the US citizenry) are to be allowed to exert control over our own nation. Surely we are, and our immigration policy is hardly an example of torture and abuse, it is in fact an historical example of freedom and opportunity. So I fail to see how either (a) the immigrants are doing anything morally wrong (which we seem to agree on), or (b) the citizens of the US are doing anything wrong (which you don't seem to agree with me on). There. I've answered your question (as did Ecoli). You cannot say that I have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scicop Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 ok' date=' so I`ll ask again, What have these people ACTUALY done wrong? [/quote'] 1. they've entered the country illegally 2. Although their pay is low compared to "americans who are not willing to do their jobs" they don't pay taxes on their income. Add the two together and you have yourself a Criminal Thier being here is a slap in the face not only to the immigrants who come here legally, pay taxes, and become productive members of society (i.e. community volunteers etc) but also to the hard working American people!!! The say americans arn't willing to do the jobs some illegal immigrants hold. Well yeah sure WE wouldn't...Would you for low pay and no health insurance? I'm sure if plant pickers, were offered a decent salary, plus benefits, you would find tons of americans in line to obtain such job. But, the businesses who hire the illigal immigrants are cheating not only the immigrants themselves, but also the American people. They cut down on costs, while inflating their pockets. What if the illigal immigrants were business degree holders from their country's top business school? Do you think Citigroup, or Microsoft would get away with hiring them off the books without benefits? Nope! Should they? Nope! Turn a blind eye to our southern border? I don't think so. Let the other countries take care of their own. The US has too many problems of its own. I don't like Bush, but I applaud his efforts to tighten the southern border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Great Britain controls its border. Why can't the US? Come on YT, isn't that position just a WEEEEE bit hypocritical? It's only hypocritical if he either supports or enacted border control in the United Kingdom. There's nothing here to suggest that this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now