Quote :

"I hardly think it would be immoral to prevent someone to come into this country to work. If they citizens of a country don't want them to come, then they shouldn't be allowed to enter the country."

If you believe people have this right, why should it be limited to national borders? Shouldn't the people of say, Cary, also be able to restrict immigration into their city?

Quote :

"The government is suppose to reflect the wishes of the citizenry, and in this case it appears that the majority of citizens of the US would prefer to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, but yet their government refuses to act. THAT is immoral."

No, preventing individual freedom of movement is immoral. It doesn't matter if it's done democratically or otherwise. Without individual rights, democracy is a terrible system of government.

5/4/2007 5:35:19 PM

Individual rights are granted by the government/citizens. The rights we have, are not God given they are given to us by ourselves (as in we as as society determine our own rights).

You can't compare a city and a country restricting immigration, that doesn't work and is a logically fallacy. We have borders for many reasons. If you want to change immigration, then change the laws governing it. Don't just neglect/ignore laws we have, because that undermines the entire system and principal of a lawful society. And if that happens, then we would have no "rights".

Quote :

"The people of the US now want to pull out of Iraq. Are you saying the Republican leadership and Bush are doing the immoral thing by not acting on this?"

True, but a majority of the people also supported war with Iraq. Now that we have imposed ourselves onto the Iraqi people it would be wrong to simply leave them to chaos. Last time I checked the vast majority of Americans never wanted illegals in the country nor did America invade and destroy their country.

Allowing automatic citizenship by birth even when the parent is in the country illegally incourages people to break out laws and it also makes it much easier for someone from Central America to become a citizen than someone from Central Africa. We have to acknowledge that America can't except everyone at once who wants to come, so you need to make it fair for all that want to come and they should be let in on merit, not chance of birth.

[Edited on May 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2007 5:50:40 PM

Quote :

"Individual rights are granted by the government/citizens. The rights we have, are not God given they are given to us by ourselves (as in we as as society determine the our own rights)."

I don't agree with this. Yes, it's all subjective, but I say we have rights that can't be voted away.

Quote :

"You can't compare a city and a country restricting immigration, that doesn't work and is a logically fallacy."

No, it isn't. Borders are arbitrary and primarily serve to limit freedom.

Quote :

"If you want to change immigration, then change the laws governing it."

Yes, we should.

Quote :

"We have to acknowledge that America can't except everyone at once who wants to come,"

No, we should accept everyone who wants to come.

5/4/2007 5:55:05 PM

Quote :

""The people of the US now want to pull out of Iraq. Are you saying the Republican leadership and Bush are doing the immoral thing by not acting on this?" True, but a majority of the people also supported war with Iraq. Now that we have imposed ourselves onto the Iraqi people it would be wrong to simply leave them to chaos. Last time I checked the vast majority of Americans never wanted illegals in the country nor did America invade and destroy their country. Allowing automatic citizenship by birth even when the parent is in the country illegally incourages people to break out laws and it also makes it much easier for someone from Central America to become a citizen than someone from Central Africa. We have to acknowledge that America can't except everyone at once who wants to come, so you need to make it fair for all that want to come and they should be let in on merit, not chance of birth."

So you're saying it's not immoral for the gov. to NOT act with the will of the people then?

[Edited on May 4, 2007 at 11:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/4/2007 11:49:33 PM

"we should except everyone who wants to come"

That makes sense..to a fourth grader. In reality you simply cant. You also have rights that can be taken away, if you dont obey the laws. Interesting concept, which seems to be ignored when it comes to this topic.

moron, immoral for the govt to not give the people what they want? WTF. Im sure you would get 100% of the population who want the gubment to give them a million dollars.. why arent they doing that? Whoever you qouted is dead on it. The american people wanted to go to iraq, we got what we wanted. I dont think any of us would do it again if we would have known, but it is what it is. Im not opposed to setting deadlines and having a plan for withdrawl, just not make it public or political, which will happen, that will further endanger our troops.

5/5/2007 8:51:03 AM

Quote :

"Whoever you qouted is dead on it."

Please read the entire thread. This person said the opposite WRT to morality and gov. decisions earlier, i'm just trying to figure out where he stands before I actually make a response.

5/5/2007 12:56:56 PM

Quote :

"That makes sense..to a fourth grader. In reality you simply cant."

Why not? It'd most likely help the country's economy greatly, if we did it right.

Quote :

"You also have rights that can be taken away, if you dont obey the laws."

That only works if the laws are moral in the first place. Removing someone's right over a stupid law is deeply immoral.

5/5/2007 1:17:02 PM

^you have me speechless. Why cant we? Why cant you fit 10,000 people in a civic? We simply dont have unlimited resources.

5/5/2007 8:42:18 PM

^ Are you trying to say that the US is at its limit for carrying capacity?

5/5/2007 8:44:41 PM

look, I disagree with alot of your views moron, but do you honestly think we can simply allow everyone who wants to come into this country to waltz in?

Not only would you bankrupt our country, which is heading that way regardless, with massive increases in entitlements, increase strains on current health and education. What would they do? Our manufacturing base is moving overseas, you would see a huge influx of unskilled labor and a huge rise in unemployment.

5/5/2007 9:14:53 PM

Ha, where are you getting this? Do you have any actual proof of what you're saying? And, you also didn't answer my question (i'm guessing because you don't have anything to support your answer).

What metric are you using exactly for "bankrupt our country" because the commonly used measurement for this is the national debt which the Republicans under the leadership of Bush have skyrocketed. Last time I checked, you leaned Republican in your views.

I'm not sure about the healthcare system, but the education system in general is not strained.

On top of that, the labor market would adjust itself, in the case of immigrants. If there are no jobs for them, then they won't want to come here. As it is now, there very clearly is a big demand for their labor. Laws that do nothing but keep them under the radar only hurt this system, with the most damage being done from the reduced taxes collected from that population. If we legalized them, we'd be able to more accurately allocate spending.

5/5/2007 9:36:17 PM

moron, we are heading towards the largest number of our citizens will soon be retiring and what many people predict bankrupt SS. SS is dying, and the boomers will kill it. Spending to fund the so called great society, that started in 1966 has now grown 10 fold.

Here is a good article.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1897.cfm

This basically mirrors concerns stated by the Federal Reserve Board and its testimony earlier this year.


And you guys think its alright just to throw some more weight on the failing bridge.

[Edited on May 5, 2007 at 10:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2007 10:32:02 PM

Socially security does need to be reformed, but immigrants have no bearing on the system for the short and middle-term (and hopefully by the long term, the system is fixed).

But new, young immigrant workers would actually help to bolster SS, medicare and medicaid.

I think it's FUD too that America is a "failing bridge." If you don't like the way we do things here, then you can GET THE HELL OUT!@

[Edited on May 5, 2007 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2007 10:41:36 PM

Did you read the article? Our budget is failing.. PERIOD. Entitlement spending is a major cause, and it is rapidly growing. And you think adding more people into the entitlement system will HELP? Yes having more workers and a broader tax base helps, but there is just so many jobs for unskilled labor in this country. You are either naive, or just playing devils advocate, if you think just opening up the border will actually help things.

1+1=4 in your world, which is fine. Im done arguing with you. Have a good night sir.

5/5/2007 10:54:12 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06speller.html

More foolishness. Scripps spelling bee champ separated from parents who have been here since 1990. Gee, I wonder why people follow our wonderful immigration laws Let's kick out business owners raising a smart kid and keep all the native-born wastes of space who are whining about illegals.

5/6/2007 12:58:56 AM

Quote :

"^you have me speechless. Why cant we? Why cant you fit 10,000 people in a civic? We simply dont have unlimited resources."

That's not the same at all. It's no argument in favor of limiting freedom of movement. All Americans are free to move to Apex, if they want to. Yet Apex doesn't have three hundred million people. Things like lack of space and resources work themselves out when people are free to live and work where they choose.

5/6/2007 7:31:52 PM