Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Speaking of civil disobedience, has this gem
of a plan been discussed yet?
That said, I'm all for civil disobedience. If you feel like a law is bad, then by all means, break it as a means of deliberate protest. But keep in mind that the idea behind civil disobedience is to break the law and then accept your punishment for doing so. You can't claim civil disobedience and then try to weasel your way out of the consequences of it when the time comes. You didn't see people during the civil rights movement riding in the front of the bus and then running from the cops when they came to arrest them, for example.
None of which is directly applicable to illegal immigration because I've never seen anyone claiming that there's a civil disobedience movement with regards to the American immigration system. Such a movement would be noble, to be sure, and I wouldn't begrudge them the effort at all — but it would necessarily end up with a whole mess of people getting deported, the same as the civil rights movement ended up with a whole lot of people being arrested.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Actually, there might be a lot of merit to a mass movement that goes "Hello! We're illegals! We've been here for years! We power your economy! Deport us all, and see how you like it!"
Or, better yet, "Give us our rights or we're leaving."
Meanwhile, Machete Kills.
edited 7th May '13 12:48:27 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Senator McCain: Border apprehensions up because of sequester cuts and immigration bill
Senator McConnell: GOP won't vote to raise debt limits without concessions
edited 7th May '13 3:23:23 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016This may be old news
, but this person's just asking for Trouble
Let's get specific here: the only kind of illegal immigrants anyone is complaining about are Mexicans. And morally speaking, Mexicans are refugees from a wartorn country that has been rendered wartorn in large part due to American policies. If we force them back to Mexico, we are essentially telling them that our immigration rules are more important than their lives, regardless of all else.
This argument isn't necessarily applicable to other kinds of immigration, but I don't hear people complaining about other kinds of immigrants, either. When they do, we can analyze the moral factors in those specific situations in turn.
Well, sometimes people ignore good laws, true. But bad laws are ALWAYS ignored, and with more consistency than that with which people ignore the good ones. Most people break the speed limit every once in a while because they're late or in a bad mood or something, but almost no one breaks it every single time they go for a drive. They don't break it just for the heck of it, they just sometimes make a value judgment that leans towards breaking it. Whereas pretty much everyone completely ignores truly terrible laws like 'don't show a personal recording of a sports event to a group of people.' It's a huge difference in the consistency of the disobedience that is a factor in differentiating between whether it's the law or the person that is the problem.
This is just meant to apply to individuals, btw, I'm not saying it translates over that well into corporations and other group entities. But it works fine for the behaviors of single persons as a whole.
As for applying civil disobedience to the immigration system, I think the closest we can come to that in practical terms is the various 'havens' where the people have essentially said 'it's okay, we won't kick you out even if you're not here legally.' California is the most visible example. I'm not really sure what else you can do in that direction practically.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.![]()
Girlfriend already posted that above.
I'm not sure what they're thinking. They're going into an area where they know openly carrying guns are prohibited and what? They think the police aren't going to get on their cases about openly flaunting the local law? Where the local citizens have chosen for themselves what they want? That's basically going into someone's house and shitting on the furniture to see if someone gets mad about it.
I'm fairly certain these guys WANT a reaction.
edited 7th May '13 1:42:46 PM by AceofSpades
There was something similar to a civil disobedience back in 2007 in response to an extremely aggressive House bill (HR 4437, if I remember right) about immigration.
edited 7th May '13 1:43:10 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanLet's take the case of someone fleeing their country because they fear for their life. Don't we have political asylum laws? If they want to use that reasoning, then they should go through that process. I don't actually think that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants actually do want to use that reasoning (their motivations are primarily economic, not political) but still. You can't simply throw out the law when it doesn't suit you. If you're going to break the law, then you have to be willing to face the consequences of doing so.
Grouping the "only group of illegal immigrants" into just "Mexicans" is... actually ignorant of the fact that people all over South and Central America are coming up through Mexico to get here to the US. There's a lot more than just Mexicans that come up here for the opportunities that they think it has for them.
Not that the ones pushing the bad reforms are themselves cognizant of the fact that Hispanics are culturally diverse.
For people living in a country where you can be kidnapped or murdered any day and have no recourse for you, your friends, your property or your family because the law enforcement is all corrupt (or dead), I don't see the practical difference between wading through the red tape of asylum versus the red tape of 'normal' immigration. Either way you're placing the rule of law, even shoddy law, over their lives.
And given Mexico's murder rates, I genuinely do not see how that is hyperbole.
With respect to political asylum specifically, it pertains to persecution based on belonging to a specific oppressed group, such as a persecuted ethnicity or religion. It's not intended to apply to the idea of people in general fleeing from a country as a result of the collapse of basic rule of law.
Assuming you're talking to me, I didn't say those were the only kind of immigrants, I said those were the only kind of immigrants that receive any focused negative attention.
edited 7th May '13 2:47:26 PM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Actually, there might be a lot of merit to a mass movement that goes "Hello! We're illegals! We've been here for years! We power your economy! Deport us all, and see how you like it!"
They tried that back in 2006.
Incidently, it's not just people consciously decided to break the law. There are a lot of "illegal immigrants" who originally came here legally but were unable to renew their visas due to bureaucratic red tape.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayIdaho governor Butch Otter declares May to be 2nd Amendment protection month
White House threatens veto of GOP bill to defuse debt-limit fight
edited 7th May '13 3:53:28 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Speaking of Bernanke:
Steve Forbes: Bernanke is source of weak economic revival
Warren Buffett says economy slowly improving, calls Bernanke 'gutsy'
Greenspan-Era Faith in Fed Seen With Bernanke

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/05/05/1964651/lynch-benghazi-budget-cuts/
I think I like this guy. Heh. Edit: I mean Representative Lynch.
edited 7th May '13 12:39:39 PM by AceofSpades