Catonic wrote:
Succinct and to the point.

Ok, I'll bite. This "illegal is illegal" talk on the part of the anti-illegal immigration movement, far from being "succinct and to the point," represents 3 basic logical fallacies, its a straw man argument, its an over simplification, and it represents circular reasoning.

1. The Straw Man Argument: "My opponent argues that illegal immigration isn't illegal. Clearly that position is wrong, as evidenced by the fact that illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal. Therefore, my opponent is wrong and my views on the issue are correct."

No one is, in fact, arguing that illegal immigration isn't illegal. Demonstrating this rather obvious point does not collapse the debate, but rather, it avoids the debate. There are some who suggest that some kinds of illegal immigration shouldn't be illegal. As laws are a matter of policy, discussing what they should and should not be is, in fact, the purpose of political dialog in a Democracy.

2. The Over Simplification: All crimes are not equal. Both murder and jay walking are illegal, but they are not similarly serious crimes. Saying that "illegal is illegal" is precisely the same thing as saying that "jay walking is just like murder."

Most of the debate regarding illegal immigration concerns the perception on the right that illegal immigration is a crime like murder, and we should devote huge amounts of resources to stopping it and severly punish those who commit it, and the perception on the left that illegal immigration is a crime like jay walking, which while illegal does not warrant severe punishments or huge investments in policing. The statement that "illegal is illegal" contributes nothing to understanding where in the spectrum between these two positions our policy should lie, other than to argue that the United States should treat all crimes exactly the same way and should hand out exactly the same punishments for all crimes, which is ridiculous on it's face.

3. Circular Reasoning: Many people in the anti-illegal immigration movement start their argument by claiming that they are upset by illegal immigration because it is illegal. A good litmus test is to ask whether they would support creating a legal process for short term immigration by manual laborers. The answer is consistently no. Which means the REAL problem isn't that its illegal, as we get to decide whether or not its illegal (see point one). The real problem is something else, and by focusing on the legality rather than on the something else that actually motivates them, they fail, again, to contribute to the discussion in a useful way.

Now I'll be the first to agree with the general statement that "we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country." There simply should not be 12 million people living here illegally. It does not follow directly from that observation that the right answer is a "crackdown." There ar... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

You are my English Composition 101 professor and I claim my A.

Decius wrote:
Now I'll be the first to agree with the general statement that "we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country." There simply should not be 12 million people living here illegally. It does not follow directly from that observation that the right answer is a "crackdown." There are other options and they need to be evaluated.

No, first we need to start enforcing the damn laws and booting the ones we know about as they make themselves known. Looking for other options is something to be looked into only after we've resumed enforcement.

For example, the speed limit on I-285 in Atlanta is 55 miles per hour, and nearly all of the 5 million or so people who live in this metropolitan area violate that speed limit every time they drive on that road. That is clearly a problem as well. I do not think the correct answer to that problem is a "crackdown."

...and yet the police quite frequently still write tickets to people they catch speeding there, fair and square. Furthermore, with most sections of the interstate system, all it takes is a few nasty wrecks in one area for it to become thought of as a "dangerous" stretch of road, and the police begin setting up regular speedtraps and warning signs to make people slow down and drive more safely.

Illegal immigration is reaching levels where it is putting unnecessary strain on the public resources of areas which are trying to protect actual citizens. To me this qualifies as a clear and present hazard and warrants a crackdown. Emergency services (like the fire department and hospital emergency rooms) and police do not have to worry about illegal aliens who have been deported because they are no longer here.

Whether or not a "crackdown" is warranted with regard to illegal immigration requires a demonstration of more than "its illegal" and "we have a problem with people doing that." It requires an assessment of why we have so many people violating that rule, what the costs of those violations are, what goals we're trying to achieve with the rule, and objectively what the best way of achieving those goals is, if the rule is not working effectively right now. IMHO, the vast majority of the people who are motivated by the "illegal immigration" issue are coming at it from an emotional place and not a sober analysis of the problem and the spectrum of potential solutions.

No, first we resume the process of booting illegal aliens to stop their numbers increasing, and then we look into these other things. I can't be 100% sure, but it seems like you're advocating the same position as the "pro alien" camp--which is that we continue to do nothing, not even the things we should be doing 365 days a year like deporting the illegals as we find them, until such time as we come up with a new "solution" to the problem. We don't need to reassess these things... They were already assessed and were why we have the INS and the immigration process! It seems to me like the main reason we have a huge pile of illegals here now is that a particular president stopped the INS from doing what they were doing. I certainly remember seeing vanloads of illegals being taken away by INS during the last president's term of office.

Dagmar wrote:
No, first we need to start enforcing the damn laws and booting the ones we know about as they make themselves known. Looking for other options is something to be looked into only after we've resumed enforcement.

Would you take the same position with regard to, perhaps, illegal drugs. That we can't talk about whether or not our drug policy makes sense until we really crack down, clean all the pot off the street, and throw all the possessors in prison?

...and yet the police quite frequently still write tickets to people they catch speeding there, fair and square.

Are you thinking that we don't deport people or that we aren't, say, building a wall in the south? Because we do and we are. There is always more enforcement you can do. Its always possible to crack down harder on something. My whole point is that the fact that is possible to crack down harder does not, by itself, always mean that you have to do that and you cannot consider any other options, ever. As the option of being more jack booted is always on the table, if this is your philosophy you will never do anything but be more jack booted.

Illegal immigration is reaching levels where it is putting unnecessary strain on the public resources of areas which are trying to protect actual citizens.

Now, I'll grant you that this IS a legitimate reason to be concerned about illegal immigrants (as opposed to "illegal is illegal"). However, I see these kinds of assertions thrown around all the time with scant evidence. Do you have data to back the assertion that the contributions made by illegal immigrants to the local tax pool is generally less than the burden they place on local government resources? (Let me add that a restatement of the common assumption that illegals don't contributed to the local tax pool is both incorrect and not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for data.)

I can't be 100% sure, but it seems like you're advocating the same position as the "pro alien" camp.

I guess I'm either with you or against you.

Decius wrote:
Would you take the same position with regard to, perhaps, illegal drugs. That we can't talk about whether or not our drug policy makes sense until we really crack down, clean all the pot off the street, and throw all the possessors in prison?

We actually do enforce the drug laws. People get arrested and go to jail all the time for drugs. Being an illegal immigrant on the other hand, rather frequently means folks rack up of dozens of DUIs without anything serious happening to them, when if we were going for parity here, they'd be deported on the very first go 'round. The reason we've got soooo many illegals here is that INS hasn't deported more than a handful of people the entire time Bush has been in office. Eight years of non-enforcement will take it's toll.

Are you thinking that we don't deport people or that we aren't, say, building a wall in the south? Because we do and we are. There is always more enforcement you can do. Its always possible to crack down harder on something. My whole point is that the fact that is possible to crack down harder does not, by itself, always mean that you have to do that and you cannot consider any other options, ever. As the option of being more jack booted is always on the table, if this is your philosophy you will never do anything but be more jack booted.

I'm thinking that we don't deport illegals currently. I'm not asking for a "crackdown". I'm asking for simple enforcement that is currently not happening at all. Here in Nashville, (Police Chief) Serpas has gone to great lengths to get special provisions from the state legislature so that the Metro Police can start doing the federal gov'ts job of kicking illegals out of Nashville, because they couldn't before, and the federal gov't wasn't doing it at all. The neighborhood I live in is nice enough, but it's very clear that at least 10% of the populace would be gone if they did a door-to-door, and Antioch would become a freaking ghost town.

Illegal immigration is reaching levels where it is putting unnecessary strain on the public resources of areas which are trying to protect actual citizens.

Now, I'll grant you that this IS a legitimate reason to be concerned about illegal immigrants (as opposed to "illegal is illegal"). However, I see these kinds of assertions thrown around all the time with scant evidence. Do you have data to back the assertion that the contributions made by illegal immigrants to the local tax pool is generally less than the burden they place on local government resources? (Let me add that a restatement of the common assumption that illegals don't contributed to the local tax pool is both incorrect and not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for data.)

Illegal immigrants can't pay federal inco... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Dagmar wrote:
Being an illegal immigrant on the other hand, rather frequently means folks rack up of dozens of DUIs without anything serious happening to them, when if we were going for parity here, they'd be deported on the very first go 'round.

Did some googling. Sounds like standard issue media sensationalism. Lots of stories out there about illegal immigrants who had multiple convictions, but not one story offered an explanation as to why the fact that they are illegal was relevent. They can put anybody in prison. This may just be police incompetence and there may be way more people like that who aren't illegal aliens. Without a specific explanation its hard to be sure.

Here in Nashville, (Police Chief) Serpas has gone to great lengths to get special provisions from the state legislature so that the Metro Police can start doing the federal gov'ts job of kicking illegals out of Nashville, because they couldn't before, and the federal gov't wasn't doing it at all.

This isn't as simple as you think it is. How do you prove someone is an illegal alien? Its not possible to physically identify someone as American, and if you start threatenning to deport anyone who is hispanic and refuses to show their papers you've created a system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Illegal immigrants can't pay federal income taxes. They pay sales tax on things they buy here, and that's all.

You are incorrect.

Show me how children with no SSN who can't get into public school without engaging in identity theft are going to be qualified to work at something more impressive than WalMart or landscaping when they become adults. These people are being exploited into a veritable slave class, and it's hurting both us and them.

I certainly agree with that, in general. Efforts to deny people access to school are deeply ill considered.

Actually fixing or addressing any of the reasons we have limits on the number of immigrants allowed in each year.

There is no legal way for people who aren't professionals to immigrate to the United States. The current limit is 0. As there is a market demand for 12 million and a limit of 0, there is obviously a disconnect between our policy and interests.

(yeah, there needs to be a Preview button for responding... I have no idea if I got the blockquotes right)

I agree, but you did well. :)

Decius wrote:

Catonic wrote:
Succinct and to the point.

Ok, I'll bite. This "illegal is illegal" talk on the part of the anti-illegal immigration movement, far from being "succinct and to the point," represents 3 basic logical fallacies, its a straw man argument, its an over simplification, and it represents circular reasoning.
...

Here here! Are you sure you don't want to go to law school? Or alternatively, marry me?

Also -- immigrants do get it. People who think the erosion of the nation-state is the fault of immigrants, rather than the inevitable trend of free-market capitalism, don't get it.

finethen wrote:
Are you sure you don't want to go to law school?

Well, for better or worse I guess I've made my decision about that.

Or alternatively, marry me?

Wow, thats the first time I've gotten a marriage proposal for talking smack on a blog. I guess this talking smack on blogs thing wasn't such a bad idea after all. Honey, you can do the job when you're in town. ;-)

Decius wrote:

finethen wrote:
Are you sure you don't want to go to law school?

Well, for better or worse I guess I've made my decision about that.

Or alternatively, marry me?

Wow, thats the first time I've gotten a marriage proposal for talking smack on a blog. I guess this talking smack on blogs thing wasn't such a bad idea after all. Honey, you can do the job when you're in town. ;-)

"The Job?" :)

Catonic wrote:
Succinct and to the point.

Ok, I'll bite. This "illegal is illegal" talk on the part of the anti-illegal immigration movement, far from being "succinct and to the point," represents 3 basic logical fallacies, its a straw man argument, its an over simplification, and it represents circular reasoning.

1. The Straw Man Argument: "My opponent argues that illegal immigration isn't illegal. Clearly that position is wrong, as evidenced by the fact that illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal. Therefore, my opponent is wrong and my views on the issue are correct."

No one is, in fact, arguing that illegal immigration isn't illegal. Demonstrating this rather obvious point does not collapse the debate, but rather, it avoids the debate. There are some who suggest that some kinds of illegal immigration shouldn't be illegal. As laws are a matter of policy, discussing what they should and should not be is, in fact, the purpose of political dialog in a Democracy.

2. The Over Simplification: All crimes are not equal. Both murder and jay walking are illegal, but they are not similarly serious crimes. Saying that "illegal is illegal" is precisely the same thing as saying that "jay walking is just like murder."

Most of the debate regarding illegal immigration concerns the perception on the right that illegal immigration is a crime like murder, and we should devote huge amounts of resources to stopping it and severly punish those who commit it, and the perception on the left that illegal immigration is a crime like jay walking, which while illegal does not warrant severe punishments or huge investments in policing. The statement that "illegal is illegal" contributes nothing to understanding where in the spectrum between these two positions our policy should lie, other than to argue that the United States should treat all crimes exactly the same way and should hand out exactly the same punishments for all crimes, which is ridiculous on it's face.

3. Circular Reasoning: Many people in the anti-illegal immigration movement start their argument by claiming that they are upset by illegal immigration because it is illegal. A good litmus test is to ask whether they would support creating a legal process for short term immigration by manual laborers. The answer is consistently no. Which means the REAL problem isn't that its illegal, as we get to decide whether or not its illegal (see point one). The real problem is something else, and by focusing on the legality rather than on the something else that actually motivates them, they fail, again, to contribute to the discussion in a useful way.

Now I'll be the first to agree with the general statement that "we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country." There simply should not be 12 million people living here illegally. It does not follow directly from that observation that the right answer is a "crackdown." There ar... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]