Is it still ok for Illegal Immigrants to come here?

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:43 pm

Rights and privileges have legal definitions that are best not mixed.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:09 pm

For which, I think the point is, they are legal constructs - legally defined 'rights' aren't inherent to anything, but rather they're granted by the definition of being codified into law, eh? Or "if they're inherent, then why do they need to be legally defined?"

SpectacularFailure · Post by **SpectacularFailure** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:36 pm

I believe that "rights" are privileges granted by those with power. The very fact that your actions can cause your rights to be taken away, proves this in my opinion.

Of course that would be my definition, not the definition that im sure would be technically used in regards to illegal immigrants, but a definition i feel holds merit nonetheless.

cavedog · Post by **cavedog** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:43 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="723387"]Some might argue that there's no such thing as "rights", only privileges that are widely considered, mistakenly, to be rights...[/quote]

Those would be the anarchists. And I'll argue with them until they run out of ammo.

But that is for another thread, eh?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:47 am

Not necessarily, Cavedog. You could go from "there are no rights, only privileges" to "so, we should create them, and then they must be defended from those who would take them" ... that hardly sounds like an anarchist's words to me.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:34 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="723702"]For which, I think the point is, they are legal constructs - legally defined 'rights' aren't inherent to anything, but rather they're granted by the definition of being codified into law, eh? Or "if they're inherent, then why do they need to be legally defined?"[/quote]
They are legally defined because there are limits to everything, and because those ignorant of rights sometimes need to have them spelled out to remind them.

SpectacularFailure · Post by **SpectacularFailure** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:30 pm

And isn't the legal definition what causes so much trouble with illegal immigration? I wouldn't say the rights are codified into law for those that are ignorant, but are instead codified for those that do understand them and wish to have the power to enforce them or use them to their own ends, be it through deportation, or conversly used by those who stay deportation in the cases of illegal immigrants.

Human rights cant be denied to people, but American privileges can. In a general sense, I think the law allows for more abuse than it defends against, Unfortunately i don't have the knowledge of American Immigration to support that statement, but it could easily be applied to most other areas of american law, ie drug enforcement.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:32 pm

[quote="SpectacularFailure";p="724161"]Human rights cant be denied to people[/quote]

Nonsense.

In a general sense, I think the law allows for more abuse than it defends against, Unfortunately i don't have the knowledge of American Immigration to support that statement, but it could easily be applied to most other areas of american law, ie drug enforcement.

I'm not sure much of that made any sense at all. You started off strong, kinda, but then lost me toward the end.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:59 am

Human rights cant be denied to people, but American privileges can.

Rights delineated in the Constitution apply to anyone on American soil. All those arrested for being in the country illegally get access to counsel, freedom from self-incrimination, and the right to live free of cruel and inhuman punishment.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:03 am

Until the court or congress take them away (hello, warantless wiretaps...).

Post by **Martin Blank** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:08 am

Neither the courts nor Congress have approved them thus far, and the new Democratic Congress is unlikely to do so.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:26 am

Really? I thought the warrantless wiretaps were done using extant laws (or at least signing statements on extant laws).

And still, the government can take away your Rights, too. I mean, it gets brought up in just about every military thread that recruits have no constitutional rights, so there's another example showing that they're not inviolate (or "inalienable"), but that they can be surrendered or taken.

Sure seems to me that "rights" are the same as "privileges" in fact and practice - they exist only as constructed by people, by work of the people who defend them and by the largess of people who have the means to take them.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:29 am

Have you been in the military? Then don't buy a bunch of crap talk that somehow we lose our rights. All you really lose is the right to sue the government during your enlistment.

All statements to the otherwise are basically inside jokes from those of us who've been there.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:33 am

Well then say so for us people who haven't been.

Though weren't they bringing that up in the Watada case, too - that you can be persecuted for the content of your speech as a soldier in some contexts?

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:48 am

Under military law, yes, due to the contract you sign.

His speech would be fine if he wasn't doing it as an officer. For example, nobody would care if he was mouthing off in a bar off-duty. When he makes press conferences in uniform, then it's a problem. Prosecuted? Probably not, more like administrative punishment (aka paperwork or no promotions in rank).

The ONLY thing they charged him with is failure to deploy.

Real Life Forums

Is it still ok for Illegal Immigrants to come here?

Who is online