should immigrant rights be the same as citizens?

[JOshooter]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

Well, the immigrants are most likely coming to the US because it is the land of equal opportunity. Therefore, what would be better for them to start a new life here than to grant them equal rights?

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

[ QUOTE ]
JOshooter:
Well, the immigrants are most likely coming to the US because it is the land of equal opportunity. Therefore, what would be better for them to start a new life here than to grant them equal rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you ask that question?

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that you read something I didn't write. I am not in favor of any caste type system where some citizens have more rights than others. I also did not write anything to that effect in either of my posts.

With the exception that naturalized citizens cannot be president and perhaps a few other instances like that, I think that all citizens should have the same rights. That is the law. If enough citizens want to change the lawful requirements to be president I don't have any problem with that either.

As far as legal immigrants undergoing naturalization goes, I'm comfortable with them not being able to hold most public offices until they are citizens. That is also the law. If enough citizens want to get together and legally change that, however, I can live with that, too.

The examples I gave you are merely potential points for debate which, for the life of me, was what I thought you asked for. If you only wanted politically correct ideas for debate you should have said so up front.

 

[JOshooter]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

I'm looking for any ideas that I could bring up. I am also throwing my ideas out here to try to get my "ducks in a row" for when it's go-time.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

[ QUOTE ]
JOshooter:
I'm looking for any ideas that I could bring up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Above italics mine.

Ahhhhh. The truth rears it's ugly head. Sorry. It was foolish of me to assume that an educational environment could be so open. My mistake. What a pity.

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

For nearly 200 years, immigrants to this country ASSIMILATED. They learned English. Most came LEGALLY into the USA.

What is being called immigration now is nothing more than ILLEGAL entry.

So at this point, HE77 NO the rights shouldn't be the same!

And Ikendu, it is FAR TOO early to say that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There was ample time to hide or ship out that stuff. Besides, that was not the ONLY or PRIMARY reason we went.

But don't I really know better than to hit continue? I guess not.

 

[raggie33]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

i thought we all was imigrants? my family on dads side came over on mayflower john aldan is my great uncle or something lol. on moms side im from i forget

 

[Greta]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

Damn... the subject changed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon8.gif ... I had the answer to the "ends justify the means" topic... and I'm not gonna waste it 'cuz it's really profound.

From the Great Spock...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Yep... that's all ya need to know on that topic... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[JOshooter]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

Just imagine how I felt after a whole weekend's research.


raggie, are you sort of suggesting that because our ancestors were immagrants and wanted more freedome from the British they came over here and revolted, so we need to honor the current immigrants so the same doesn't happen again?

I know you didn't state this, I inferred it, I'm just looking for some clarification

 

[bryguy42]

NO!!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

 

[raggie33]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

no just giveing the definition of the word
A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.

 

[JerryM]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

NO!
Jerry

 

[Wylie]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

Yeah that sounds like a real debate (all sarcasm intended!!!)
No and another resounding NO just to back the first one.
Rules shouldn't be made to be broken. Sorry Arny!

 

[James S]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

[ QUOTE ]
From the Great Spock...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but he made the decision of his own free will. Nobody would have required it of him to sacrifice himself for the others. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

As far as immigrants.. Are we talking about people who have gotten their paperwork and are working to become naturalized citizens? Then yes, of course they deserve the same rights as those who were born here. Whats the logic to refute that? You could come up with some certainly about not pulling their weight as they just arrived and may take their entire life time to put as much into the system as we did since we were children, but thats rhetoric and grand generalization.

Those that would come here and have no interest in becoming "Americans" I have no love for. You want to be here then you need to do the work to become a naturalized citizen. You need to learn english, you need to learn to live in what passes for a culture around here. The biggest difference from other places in the world I think is that means that your neighbor is going to be radically different than you, in shape size color creed religion whatever, and you need to learn to deal with that.

America aint utopia, but don't make it worse by bringing along the things that you're moving here to get away from.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

[ QUOTE ]
Wylie:
Yeah that sounds like a real debate (all sarcasm intended!!!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It sounds less like debate instruction and more like a politically correct lovefest where the primary objective is to see who can do the best job of sucking up to to a biased hack who calls himself a teacher.

Heaven forbid that there should be open discussion or free speech in what is currently referred to as education.

 

[BB]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

The only rights that I am aware of that are different between "natives" and immigrants that are naturalized citizens are:

Naturalized Citizens:

1. cannot become president of the US.
2. can lose their citizenship if there is fraud found during the previous naturalization process (i.e., you are a war criminal or something).
3. remain subject to draft in both countries--although they are not usually subject to prosecution (by international conventions) for draft evasion if they are not physically present in that country.
4. usually retain old citizenship rights/responsibilities unless they specifically renounce their citizenship to the previous country or by some other act (treason, hold elected office, don't maintain identity cards requirements, etc.).

Immigrants who are not naturalized citizens do not enjoy all of the rights of naturalized citizens--in any country. There is a movement to allow "non-citizens" more rights: non-citizen voting is the suffrage movement of the decade:

Here is an earlier CPF thread on Making things harder for immigrants.

For another view of "immigrant's rights", Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign website is probably a good way to look at how "some folks" frame the argument.

Regarding #3--I heard many years ago the story of a US resident (maybe even a naturalized US citizen) who went to visit Greece for the first time since his parents immigrated to the US when he was only a year or so old.

Upon entering Greece--he was promptly placed in to Greece's required military service (for a couple of years). He was much older than 18 years (in his thirties or forties?)--and he did not even speak Greek! Needless to say the next couple of years were not ones that he enjoyed.

-Bill

 

[pedalinbob]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:
[ QUOTE ]
Wylie:
Yeah that sounds like a real debate (all sarcasm intended!!!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It sounds less like debate instruction and more like a politically correct lovefest where the primary objective is to see who can do the best job of sucking up to to a biased hack who calls himself a teacher.

Heaven forbid that there should be open discussion or free speech in what is currently referred to as education.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, well stated.

i was stunned at the indocrination that went on in my schooling.
im not talking about simply having teachers that had differing opinions from mine. im talking about these professors defining our projects in such a manner as to not allow a differing view.

whoops...that was a bit off topic.

back to your regularly scheduled programming.

legal immigrants=ok.
illegal imigrants=no.

Bob

 

[Datasaurusrex]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
From the Great Spock...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Yep... that's all ya need to know on that topic... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to Socialism / Communism... and the justification for a number of great atrocities.

It is that sort of justification that has been used to suspend the 'rights' of the average citizen in many countries... the right to private property, the right to due process, even the 'right' to know what crime a person is charged with.

I'll skip the Star Trek philosophy and stick with the Simpsons /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Datasaurusrex]

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

It seems Sub_Umbra has hit it on the head... the issue of immigrant rights is largely dependent upon your understanding of the nature of rights. bty, those were some good posts Sub_Umbra, interesting, well thought out, and thought provoking.

Personally I believe in the theory of 'natural rights' ala John Locke. Rights are inherent possessions, therfore they are part and parcel of being human... as such, a person cannot be separated from the rights they possess -- one can merely be denied the ability to exercise a right, but the right itself is never excised from their being.

So essentially, I'd argue that immigrants do indeed posses the same rights of a citizen, except those 'created' and conferred by citizenship itself... for such rights are 'manufactured rights' (e.g. the right to hold public office, the right to actually stay within the country). Again Sub_Umbra made a great distinction, this special qualification by definition means immigrants do not possess 'the same' rights... they only posses all the same 'natural rights.'

Now, if one took a position that immigrants do not have 'essentially' all the same rights as a citizen (e.g. free speech, RKABA, secure in one's person and possesions, et cetera), then it stands to reason that such a person must not believe in 'natural human rights' (as acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence). For the Declaration states that such rights are inaliable (in humans, not just American citizens) and one must remember that there were no 'American citizens' prior to the reveolutionary war... so the founding fathers could not appeal to special 'citizenship rights' as a justification for the revolutionary war (instead they appealed to inherent human rights and made some mighty powerful arguments in favor of such rights).

In fact, it would seem that ANYBODY who denies that immigrants possess the same rights Americans claim as part of their birthright is also denying the very 'self evident' truths outlined in the Declaration of Independence -- which runs counter to everything this country was founded upon. Because remember, Americans do not claim our rights come from being 'born Americans,' rather they come from being 'born human.' <- that may just be a rhetorical tool, but really it is also very accurate imho.

 

[Datasaurusrex]

[ QUOTE ]
JOshooter said:
My topic is "The ends justify the means"

[/ QUOTE ]

For an interesting perspective on this topic look into the 'Principle of Double effect." It was first developed in the middle ages by Catholic casuists -- usually you'll see couched within an argument that uses military scenarios to explore the morality of ends justifying means (or more exactly, to explore the morality of accepting premeditated immoral consequences).

Michael Walzer loosely describes it as follows:
1) the act in question is good in itself, or at least indifferent
2) the direct effect is morally acceptable
3) the intention of the actor/agent is good -- that they aim only at the acceptable result, the 'evil' result is not truly an end nor is it a means to the ends
4) the good effect is sufficiently good enough to compensate for allowing an evil effect, but it must be justified via a proportionality rule.

Not that this argument/perspective does not atually say that 'the ends justify the means' -- only that undesirable effects (evil or immoral consequences) can be justified.

I have yet to see a solid argument that strictly just supports the position that 'ends justify the means.'

My best advice, as much as I hate to say it, would be to ignore which side of the argument is actually correct. You'll likely get further by studying debate itself, how to do it effectively. Also look at studying 'presentations,' as in how to make effective presentations.

Doing the above will make it possible for you to 'win' debates even when the information you are actually presenting in totally flawed.