Red Mosquito • View topic - Define American (Immigration & DREAM Act)

Beef · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:50 pm

Mickey wrote:

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Beef wrote:

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Why do people keep coming back to the "well its actually his parents that broke the law" point?

It proves nothing, and is not a justification for anything. We all are, to some degree, helped and hampered every day by the choices our parents made for us, and are responsible for the consequences of that. Whether it be they chose to raise us in California, or Utah, or Florida. Or chose to send us to an expensive college prep school as opposed to public school. And thats not even to speak for the genetic and lifestyle behaviors we are subjected to. It is still our responsibility to do the right things as we get older, and aware of what those right things are. If we choose not to, those choices become our own and the consequences of those choices are our own.

None of those things are illegal.

Irrelevant to the point. Fair or not, and whether or not legality is involved,doesn't change the fact that we are all impacted by the choices our parents made for us to some degree. What we do with the resulting circumstances is our responsibility as an individual. Continually saying it was the decision of his parents should not in anyway absolve the decisions he has made.

Sure, but that doens't change the fact that, from the beginning, he was going to be unjustly deported for a decision his parent made. This isn't like, "My parents didn't read to me as a kid so I'm not as literate as some," this is "I'm being held accountable for a criminal act that I didn't commit." How you could possibly see that as irrelevant to the point is beyond me.

Right, and that's why it keeps being mentioned. I can't think of another scenario where we would hold someone responsible for a crime that someone else committed. Comparing that to Mommy sending me to public school instead of a private school is ridiculous.

uglyduckling · **Joined:** Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:45 am **Posts:** 10347

Owl_Farmer wrote:

uglyduckling wrote:

Kind of veering off topic a little, but I'd be curious to hear Rafa's take on immigration. If you don't mind talking about it, I'd be curious to hear what kind of status you have in Canada, and how long/drawn out the process was?

I got here as a permanent resident, and that grants me pretty much everything a Canadian citizen has access to except for voting and a Canadian passport. After living 3 years in Canada, permanent residents can apply for citizenship. As a perm res I can also sponsor family members to come here as perm residents themselves, provided I make enough money to show I could support them financially.

I first applied to become PR in mid 2005 and got the permit by mid 2006. My sister went through the same process more recently and it took longer for her to finish, it took her like 18 months. I really can't remember how much dough I spent, but it was a few hundred CAD dollars for sure, though definitely less than $1000. That would've included the dealing with the CAD bureaucracy plus getting police clearances, medical check, etc. but it wouldn't include 3 trips to Mexico City to request the clearances, pick them up, hand them at the CAD embassy and the immigration interview.

What a bunch of Mexicans were doing up to a couple of years ago was come to Canada as tourists (back then CAD didn't ask a tourist visa from us) and then stayed and asked for refugee status while they were already in Canada. Apparently there was a significant increase in the number of Mexicans doing this after the drug wars got real nasty, and so the CAD government decided to ask Mexicans to apply for tourist visas as well.

I guess the process is long drawn, but it's fair. The requisites are reasonable and if you know you fulfill the requirements beforehand, the whole thing is just a matter of going through the process. Speaking of my own experience and and that of several people I know, there's no arbitrariness, it's just a matter of having patience while the bureaucracy does its thing.

Thanks for sharing, Rafa.

It sounds like it's a bit of a process, but a process that there is an end to. The American process has not much end in sight, and it's such a tight and unforgiving system. Then there is the whole lottery aspect, which also seems relatively ridiculous.

I almost feel like we're punishing people who want to immigrate, largely because of the border problem we're having with Mexico. And I don't like it one bit.

Mecca · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:57 am

after a night of sleep to think a little on it, I guess it just makes me uneasy thinking that parents might repeat this behavior as a way to get their kids into the country, not that immigration is a bad thing at all. I'm all against the fraud part of it and parents forcing children into illegal activity, of course. Though, people are already doing such things, so I guess I was just making a null point. Its hard to fault an unknowing child.

Beef · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:33 am

Mecca wrote:

after a night of sleep to think a little on it, I guess it just makes me uneasy thinking that parents might repeat this behavior as a way to get their kids into the country, not that immigration is a bad thing at all. I'm all against the fraud part of it and parents forcing children into illegal activity, of course. Though, people are already doing such things, so I guess I was just making a null point. Its hard to fault an unknowing child.

And I think that will be the thing that people use to argue against passing the DREAM act however, I think the provisions within the DREAM act help to legislate against a surge of parents sending their kids to the US. It won't silence those against the idea though.

Mecca · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:39 am

Beef wrote:

Mecca wrote:

after a night of sleep to think a little on it, I guess it just makes me uneasy thinking that parents might repeat this behavior as a way to get their kids into the country, not that immigration is a bad thing at all. I'm all against the fraud part of it and parents forcing children into illegal activity, of course. Though, people are already doing such things, so I guess I was just making a null point. Its hard to fault an unknowing child.

And I think that will be the thing that people use to argue against passing the DREAM act however, I think the provisions within the DREAM act help to legislate against a surge of parents sending their kids to the US. It won't silence those against the idea though.

Other than increasing security measures at customs, I am not really sure what could stop them from sending kids with fake documents with coyotes like the author was sent.

Beef · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:30 am

Mecca wrote:

Beef wrote:

Mecca wrote:

after a night of sleep to think a little on it, I guess it just makes me uneasy thinking that parents might repeat this behavior as a way to get their kids into the country, not that immigration is a bad thing at all. I'm all against the fraud part of it and parents forcing children into illegal activity, of course. Though, people are already doing such things, so I guess I was just making a null point. Its hard to fault an unknowing child.

And I think that will be the thing that people use to argue against passing the DREAM act however, I think the provisions within the DREAM act help to legislate against a surge of parents sending their kids to the US. It won't silence those against the idea though.

Other than increasing security measures at customs, I am not really sure what could stop them from sending kids with fake documents with coyotes like the author was sent.

Did you look at the conditions you'd have to fill to become a legal resident under the DREAM act?

Mecca · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:07 am

Beef wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Beef wrote:

Mecca wrote:

after a night of sleep to think a little on it, I guess it just makes me uneasy thinking that parents might repeat this behavior as a way to get their kids into the country, not that immigration is a bad thing at all. I'm all against the fraud part of it and parents forcing children into illegal activity, of course. Though, people are already doing such things, so I guess I was just making a null point. Its hard to fault an unknowing child.

And I think that will be the thing that people use to argue against passing the DREAM act however, I think the provisions within the DREAM act help to legislate against a surge of parents sending their kids to the US. It won't silence those against the idea though.

Other than increasing security measures at customs, I am not really sure what could stop them from sending kids with fake documents with coyotes like the author was sent.

Did you look at the conditions you'd have to fill to become a legal resident under the DREAM act?

No, I just read the article in the OP.

Beef · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:19 am

Mecca wrote:

Beef wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Beef wrote:

Mecca wrote:

after a night of sleep to think a little on it, I guess it just makes me uneasy thinking that parents might repeat this behavior as a way to get their kids into the country, not that immigration is a bad thing at all. I'm all against the fraud part of it and parents forcing children into illegal activity, of course. Though, people are already doing such things, so I guess I was just making a null point. Its hard to fault an unknowing child.

And I think that will be the thing that people use to argue against passing the DREAM act however, I think the provisions within the DREAM act help to legislate against a surge of parents sending their kids to the US. It won't silence those against the idea though.

Other than increasing security measures at customs, I am not really sure what could stop them from sending kids with fake documents with coyotes like the author was sent.

Did you look at the conditions you'd have to fill to become a legal resident under the DREAM act?

No, I just read the article in the OP.

It's outlined within the thread. Did you read the thread?

mray10 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:55 pm

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Beef wrote:

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Why do people keep coming back to the "well its actually his parents that broke the law" point?

It proves nothing, and is not a justification for anything. We all are, to some degree, helped and hampered every day by the choices our parents made for us, and are responsible for the consequences of that. Whether it be they chose to raise us in California, or Utah, or Florida. Or chose to send us to an expensive college prep school as opposed to public school. And thats not even to speak for the genetic and lifestyle behaviors we are subjected to. It is still our responsibility to do the right things as we get older, and aware of what those right things are. If we choose not to, those choices become our own and the consequences of those choices are our own.

None of those things are illegal.

Irrelevant to the point. Fair or not, and whether or not legality is involved,doesn't change the fact that we are all impacted by the choices our parents made for us to some degree. What we do with the resulting circumstances is our responsibility as an individual. Continually saying it was the decision of his parents should not in anyway absolve the decisions he has made.

It's hugely relevant to the point. Parents who raise their kids in Utah, or send them to private school, or let them eat fatty fast food all day aren't putting their kids in a situation where doing the right thing means being deported.

Green Habit · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:55 am

Mickey wrote:

I do appreciate straight white American males claiming that the right thing to do is to follow the laws, which are written by other straight white American males, for the most part. You know, they can understand why a minority might break the law. It's not right though.

I know this was bottom paged, but I can't believe that no one called out Mickey on playing the race card.

Skitch Patterson · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:58 am

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:

I do appreciate straight white American males claiming that the right thing to do is to follow the laws, which are written by other straight white American males, for the most part. You know, they can understand why a minority might break the law. It's not right though.

I know this was bottom paged, but I can't believe that no one called out Mickey on playing the race card.

Who exactly would call him out on it? Im the only voice of dissent in this thing, and I sure as hell am not in a position to call someone out on the race card.

Green Habit · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:01 am

Mecca wrote:

Governmental fraud, no matter the intentions is wrong, no matter the government. I'm all for people bettering their lives, but within the realm of legality.

I'm late to the last few pages of this thread, so this may have been addressed already, but I'd still like to comment. If there is a law that you believe is unjust, I believe you are in the moral right to break it. At the same time (and I'm pretty certain Skitch, myself, and others addressed this early on in this thread), you must be prepared to accept whatever punishment breaking that law entails. Furthermore, you should make a good argument as to why you think the law is unjust if you expect to gain sympathy from society for your actions.

Green Habit · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:03 am

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:

I do appreciate straight white American males claiming that the right thing to do is to follow the laws, which are written by other straight white American males, for the most part. You know, they can understand why a minority might break the law. It's not right though.

I know this was bottom paged, but I can't believe that no one called out Mickey on playing the race card.

Who exactly would call him out on it? Im the only voice of dissent in this thing, and I sure as hell am not in a position to call someone out on the race card.

Anyone has the ability to call out a statement that looks to be unfounded without anything to back it up with.

Skitch Patterson · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:04 am

Green Habit wrote:

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:

I do appreciate straight white American males claiming that the right thing to do is to follow the laws, which are written by other straight white American males, for the most part. You know, they can understand why a minority might break the law. It's not right though.

I know this was bottom paged, but I can't believe that no one called out Mickey on playing the race card.

Who exactly would call him out on it? Im the only voice of dissent in this thing, and I sure as hell am not in a position to call someone out on the race card.

Anyone has the ability to call out a statement that looks to be unfounded without anything to back it up with.

Sometimes you're a pretty serious guy GH

Green Habit · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:05 am

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:

I do appreciate straight white American males claiming that the right thing to do is to follow the laws, which are written by other straight white American males, for the most part. You know, they can understand why a minority might break the law. It's not right though.

I know this was bottom paged, but I can't believe that no one called out Mickey on playing the race card.

Who exactly would call him out on it? Im the only voice of dissent in this thing, and I sure as hell am not in a position to call someone out on the race card.

Anyone has the ability to call out a statement that looks to be unfounded without anything to back it up with.

Sometimes you're a pretty serious guy GH

'Tis true. I'm still blanking out on a witty response in the SCOTUS thread.

Mecca · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:53 am

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:

I do appreciate straight white American males claiming that the right thing to do is to follow the laws, which are written by other straight white American males, for the most part. You know, they can understand why a minority might break the law. It's not right though.

I know this was bottom paged, but I can't believe that no one called out Mickey on playing the race card.

because it's Mickey.

Mickey · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:23 pm

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:

I do appreciate straight white American males claiming that the right thing to do is to follow the laws, which are written by other straight white American males, for the most part. You know, they can understand why a minority might break the law. It's not right though.

I know this was bottom paged, but I can't believe that no one called out Mickey on playing the race card.

"Playing the race card?" You're kidding, right? You have two white Americans over here going "Yeah, well, sucks to be the kid of an immigrant, but you should have gone back to your little dirt hill, here in America we follow the rules that unjustly punish people like you" and you're going to call that "playing the race card?"

Fair jab? No. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's a legitimate take on what's going on here. We have those in a position of power or luxury opining on laws that they know will never affect them. I don't think it's playing the race card so much as it is an acknowledgment of the moral high-horsing that's been going on in this thread. In fact, I don't think race has anything to do with it. I am most certainly not saying that Mecca and Skitch are racist and that has never been my impression in this thread. However, I am saying that their dissent from popular opinion here seems to be marred by a failure to see things from anything other than the white majority point-of-view. "You should have fessed up" is pretty easy to say when you know you'll never be deported back to a land where you have no money, family, or career, and possibly don't even speak the language.

Green Habit · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:32 pm

Mickey wrote:

In fact, I don't think race has anything to do with it.

Then why did you mention it?

If Vargas was a Spaniard instead of a Filipino do you think the reactions in this thread would have been any different?

Mickey · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:38 pm

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:

In fact, I don't think race has anything to do with it.

Then why did you mention it?

If Vargas was a Spaniard instead of a Filipino do you think the reactions in this thread would have been any different?

Because being white in America certainly has to do with being in the privileged majority. Hell, I don't think the reactions would be any different if the guy was Iranian, but I think there would be a marked difference in the voices of dissent if either of the dissenters were non-white Americans. Not that being black would make Skitch agree with Vargas' actions, but I think it would affect his lack of sympathy.

4/5 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:40 pm

Mickey wrote:

Not that being black would make Skitch agree with Vargas' actions, but I think it would affect his lack of sympathy.

Clarence Thomas disagrees.

Define American (Immigration & DREAM Act)

Who is online