helene_t Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 When was the last time you had to prove your citizenship for anything?Every time I cross a border. But ok it doesn't matter which eu citizenship I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 We do not usually accept the argument "Steve really wanted such and such, but there was no way for him to get such and such legally, so it's ok that he got it illegally". We don't usually accept this, and we don't usually retroactively make his actions legal. Realism suggests that I don't push this argument too hard, no doubt examples of such shenanigans can be found in high level business deals, but in principle we don't go along with this.The philosophical problem often used to discuss this is something like "Joe is totally broke, with no medical insurance, and he has a child who desperately needs medicine to live. Is it ethical for him to steal it from the pharmacy?" I.e. isn't it better to steal than to knowingly allow someone to die, because the latter is tantamount to murder? The analogy in immigration generally involves refugees -- if they stayed in their native country, their lives would be in danger. We generally don't consider immigration just to improve your lot in life (e.g. "chase the American dream") to be comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 The philosophical problem often used to discuss this is something like "Joe is totally broke, with no medical insurance, and he has a child who desperately needs medicine to live. Is it ethical for him to steal it from the pharmacy?" I.e. isn't it better to steal than to knowingly allow someone to die, because the latter is tantamount to murder? The analogy in immigration generally involves refugees -- if they stayed in their native country, their lives would be in danger. We generally don't consider immigration just to improve your lot in life (e.g. "chase the American dream") to be comparable. Yes, I thought of this analogy. And yes, it has particular force with the refugee crisis. But it does not, pardon the expression, trump everything. When people are desperate, they do desperate things. Long ago I read a story, I am pretty sure by Erskine Caldwell, involving a father who almost certainly killed his daughter. They were dirt poor, or poorer, his child was suffering and starving, there seemed to be little doubt that he had killed her. The jury found him not guilty. So I remember it anyway. Still, refugees or poor immigrants, we have lots and lots of people in the world that are in dire need. We can and should help, but I doubt many are prepared to say that anyone who can somehow get here is entitled to stay, let alone entitled to become a citizen. It's not quite a Sophie's Choice, they are not our children, but morally, psychologically, however you cut it, it's a tough business. Some will be accommodated, others will not. We decide how? It is easy enough to understand how a desperate person might see the law as something in the way and to be gotten around. I can easily imagine myself doing the same thing. But the numbers are huge, so we must make choices.There is no way around this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Blackshoe suggests open borders. I don't favor this but since I think there is no chance in hell we would ever do it, and he probably agrees, I won't say more.Yes, I do agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I'm not willing to assume that any illegal immigrant crosses over b/c his/her life is in danger. I am willing to assume that immigration laws are not enforced for political reasons. And "anti-illegal-immigation" policies are criticized for being "poor politically." Geez, we've made so many poor economic, military, national security and other administrative decisions for political reasons, I wonder why not make some poor political decisions for sound economic, military, national security and other administrative reasons. Here's the bare bones of an idea: Allow an American citizen to sponsor an immigrant family. Conditions: Family certifies that no one is on welfare and that family members who earn file tax returns; family members of age immediately enter citizenship qualification stream; sponsor indemnifies USA against all deportation costs should family member(s) violate the sponsorship agreement. And the agreements are actively monitored for enforcement purposes. And no more anchor babies, or immigrabies, or whatever we can call them that is not politically incorrect.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I'm not willing to assume that any illegal immigrant crosses over b/c his/her life is in danger. I am willing to assume that immigration laws are not enforced for political reasons. And "anti-illegal-immigation" policies are criticized for being "poor politically." Geez, we've made so many poor economic, military, national security and other administrative decisions for political reasons, I wonder why not make some poor political decisions for sound economic, military, national security and other administrative reasons. Here's the bare bones of an idea: Allow an American citizen to sponsor an immigrant family. Conditions: Family certifies that no one is on welfare and that family members who earn file tax returns; family members of age immediately enter citizenship qualification stream; sponsor indemnifies USA against all deportation costs should family member(s) violate the sponsorship agreement. And the agreements are actively monitored for enforcement purposes. And no more anchor babies, or immigrabies, or whatever we can call them that is not politically incorrect.... This bare bones idea has appeal, it is definitely not crazy, but as so often is the case the devil could be in the details. Life rarely goes as planned and, when it doesn't, deciding exactly what responsibilities and what rights lie with whom could be tough. I did some volunteer work for a while. I'll skip the details, but there were complexities. Becky, my wife, had a similar experience. It seems almost inevitable. Becky and I each handled the complexities, but there were things to be handled. But some sort of sponsorship to enhance the case for legal immigration of a person with no extended family already living here? I like it if it can be made to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 ... sponsor indemnifies USA against all deportation costs should family member(s) violate the sponsorship agreement ...Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 And yet the fact that several companies hold such databases, often holding much more personal information than the government would keep, is perfectly ok? There is a big difference. Facebook cannot put me on a no-fly list, or arrest me for breaking questionable laws, or just detain me for hours just in order to interrogate me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 But is it really that weird for a government to have a database with all the names and basic info about her citizens? Wouldn't it be weird if I started a chess club but had no membership list? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Good luck with that. Many people seem quite passionate about the fine character of many illegals -- I do not doubt their faith is justified -- and I think they should have a chance to put their money where their ideology is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 There is a big difference. Facebook cannot put me on a no-fly list, or arrest me for breaking questionable laws, or just detain me for hours just in order to interrogate me. Nor does Facebook provide you with a highway system, a national defense, a Social Security payment, Medicare, and a host of other services that are provided by the federal government. Comparing corporations to government is a wasteful pursuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The government has lots of databases: Social Security, tax records, Medicare/Medicaid, criminal databases, etc. What we don't have here is a big, consolidated database that all the agencies can access, and that has information about everyone. We even have restrictions on how different agencies can access each others' databases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 But is it really that weird for a government to have a database with all the names and basic info about her citizens? Wouldn't it be weird if I started a chess club but had no membership list?That is reasonable. What would not be reasonable is to have a secret database listing all metadata of their recent phone calls/internet access etc. (But of course one would have to be paranoid to believe governments would even collect such data.) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Good, so we both agree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 What we don't have here is a big, consolidated database that all the agencies can access, and that has information about everyone. We even have restrictions on how different agencies can access each others' databases.We have those restrictions in Denmark and Netherlands and I suppose most civilised countries as well. Every Danish government agency who has any information about me will know that my ID is 260866-3528. From this they can deduce my gender and date of birth. The central population registry knows a bit more about me like for example name and citizenship. There will be one registry that has my criminal record, one that has my medical record, one has has my tax record etc. but they cannot access each other's data. If I lived in Denmark there would be a local registry in the town where I lived that also knew my address and my marital status. And they would know who is my gp. This is a bit more centralized that in the UK where the tax registry and the voting registry are two different registries, and neither would know who is my gp. However, there are not many clerks who have access to my population registry record (neither the local nor the national one), and it is only certain health care providers that can access my health records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I assume at the very least China and Russia have full access to these govt records In Western Europe. I noted my local newspaper had article about Netherlands Army. Per article they have cut military spending to the point they tell training soldiers to not fire their rifle but shout bang bang... This per a memo issued by Defense Ministry to commanders during the month of July. It makes one wonder how much or little money is spent on cyber security. Here in the USA govt personal records have been hacked including military and our spies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 One of the issues in the US is that many government records are managed at the state level, not federal. In particular, the states track births and deaths, and I don't think there's a standard procedure for them to notify other agencies of deaths. As a result, it's not uncommon for Social Security to keep making payments to deceased individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 One of the issues in the US is that many government records are managed at the state level, not federal. In particular, the states track births and deaths, and I don't think there's a standard procedure for them to notify other agencies of deaths. As a result, it's not uncommon for Social Security to keep making payments to deceased individuals. Yes This is just another example of divided government. Information is power, and the approach of dividing that power up among competing interests. Most of the rest of the world seems to prefer to that consolidate power in a few hands.------------------- OTOH the opposite problem is to make government so diffuse that it seems the state is ungovernable, see Italy etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Disagree. Someone leading all primary polls deserves to be treated seriously - it does say something about the primary and its voters, no matter how unlikely the candidate is to win. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217633/why-people-like-donald-trump 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Here's the bare bones of an idea: Allow an American citizen to sponsor an immigrant family. Conditions: Family certifies that no one is on welfare and that family members who earn file tax returns; family members of age immediately enter citizenship qualification stream; sponsor indemnifies USA against all deportation costs should family member(s) violate the sponsorship agreement. Once a friend of mine had to apply for a visa extension in Denmark. I had to sign that I would pay the costs of prosecuting, imprisoning and deporting her in case it would be necesary. So what you suggest is not just fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Once a friend of mine had to apply for a visa extension in Denmark. I had to sign that I would pay the costs of prosecuting, imprisoning and deporting her in case it would be necesary. So what you suggest is not just fantasy. That's friendship!!!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Eugene Robinson opined today that Trump really might win the nomination. I doubt it, but let's think about it a little. Going back to the OP, I don't think we could lay such a result at the feet of Citizens United. As Robinson notes, Trump is getting all the free publicity he can handle. Moreover, and this was news to me, Ben Carson is in second place. Now a successful neurosurgeon makes a decent living, but I doubt that it his money that is driving his success. If either the Republicans as a party, or all of us as a country, are going to overcome this, we need to accurately think through what is driving it. The professional wrestler Jesse Ventura did become governor of Minnesota. My understanding is that he didn't do such a bad job of it, but still I think it should give us pause. Jesse Ventura may know how to slam an opponent to the mat, Donald Trump may know how to get rich through creative bankruptcy, and Ben Carson is a fine neurosurgeon. They should all continue doing what they do best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Don't forget that a B-list actor did make it all the way to the Presidency 35 years ago. We currently have a comedian (Al Franken) in the Senate, and pop singer Sonny Bono was in there earlier. Familiarity to voters and charismatic personality can go a long way in politics. Positions espoused during the campaign can be practically irrelevant, since we know that they'll say whatever the voters want to hear, and many campaign promises are broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiros Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 And we haven't even gotten started on Arnold Schwarzenegger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 And we haven't even gotten started on Arnold Schwarzenegger Talk to the hand! Of course you and barmar are right, it's not new. I do think that Donald Trump is a different ball of wax. The difference, approximately, is this: People who voted for Reagan, perhaps to a lesser extent for Schwarzenegger, had a fair idea of what they would be getting. These two had a social philosophy and political views. But Trump? His only value is himself. He enjoys pushing people around, so I guess he is selling the vicarious pleasure of watching him be insulting, coarse and pushy but if anyone thinks that he has the best interests of anyone except himself in mind they are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.