Another - you cant make this up

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Americans (the U.S. kind) are more prone to change conditions in their country to their benefit rather than illegally migrating to another country. This country was founded by that type of revolution. There have been many revolutions south of the border. Perhaps they should keep trying till they get it right so their citizens don't have to leave. I hear they have some places that are amenable to the poor, like Cuba or Venezuala--good health care, everyone has a job or is taken care of. Those would be good models for the downtrodden to follow rather than risking everything to illegally sneak into such an ungrateful, oppressive, and selfish place like the U.S. Even Canada would be better, no?

I don't think revolutions are easy or spontaneous. They require the right combination of conditions at the right time. With the inherent corruption and poverty present in many countries, I can see how a more selfish solution might be attractive to some.

Although, with the natural resources, workforce and expanding business south of the border, it will be interesting to see how the economies and people respond over the next few decades.

Which moral implications and whose morality? A great deal of the moral implications that resulted in U.S. law, it is said, derived from Judeo/Christian morality. But that morality also includes much tough love. The god of that morality can be very harsh with those who steal and and break the law. That morality does not preach salvation by government, but by personal conduct and personal charity.

It's unfortunate that God chose to filter his morality through us imperfect people. (Note: This may not apply to those fortunate enough to speak directly to God.)

I've heard that "saying" in North America as well. But "getting by" is vague, and when referring to criminal getting by, there is the implication that, if you're caught, nice try but you'll pay the penalty.

Definitely a slippery slope there, but I'd think it's also why immigration issues are handled as both criminal and civil elements of Federal law.

One of the changes that Americans made was to provide for starving children--traditionally, much of that was done (and still is) by charity, but we've even legislated for such provisions. So it is not necessary to steal to feed starving children.

Agree, sometimes it does take a village

Does Whitman's illegal ex-maid have children?

Not sure but from what I gather she cleans a mean house.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think revolutions are easy or spontaneous. They require the right combination of conditions at the right time.

The same applies to illegally entering and staying in the U.S.--as you replied to Jimmy "it certainly doesn't look like it's the easy road to me."

But the 12 to 20 to 30 million illegals certainly could have joined with the oppressed masses they left behind to follow some glorious leader like Chavez or Castro to create a workers paradise back home instead of the quiet revolution of cheap labor in the U.S.

With the inherent corruption and poverty present in many countries, I can see how a more selfish solution might be attractive to some.

All political solutions are selfish.

Although, with the natural resources, workforce and expanding business south of the border, it will be interesting to see how the economies and people respond over the next few decades.

If we stop the illegal immigration, the economies and people will be forced to "respond." By allowing it, it provides the safety valve which allows the backward situations to perpetuate.

It's unfortunate that God chose to filter his morality through us imperfect people. (Note: This may not apply to those fortunate enough to speak directly to God.)

Sounds like maybe you spoke to god to know what he chose?

I would guess that it is that very imperfection which requires a moral compass. Perfection needs nothing else.

Then, again, what is a perfect person other than a god of sorts . . . or a Spence?

By the way, you didn't say to which moral implications or whose morality you referred.

Definitely a slippery slope there, but I'd think it's also why immigration issues are handled as both criminal and civil elements of Federal law.

Massive illegal immigration is not merely an "issue," but a major problem that affects the states, cities, "villages", and individuals in this country. Though immigration is in the purview of the Federal Government, it does not have the resources to handle it alone. It would require tens of thousands of new agents to be hired. Whereas, the assistance of local law enforcement provides a ready force that can assist in identifying illegals in the process of routine stops. This has already been done and agencies have been created for this to occur. It has manifestly been the intent of Congress, through its creation of those agencies that state and local entities are meant to assist. That the Feds are resisting implies to me that they are either protecting turf, which is odious considering they have stolen so much turf from the states, or else the current administration does not want to effectively stop illegal immigration.

Agree, sometimes it does take a village :-spence

"Villagers" should have the local authority to impose various local ordinances and even to choose their version of health insurance. The Federal Government was not created to be a local village, but to protect the diverse villages from foreign invasions, even invasions such as massive illegal immigration. And the villagers should be allowed to detain and hand over such illegals to the subservient Federal Government. But it seems that some top-down politicians like to use populist phrases like "it takes a village" but, in reality, they don't trust the villagers, and they really mean "it takes a central control of the villages."