Is Obama a President or King?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm unaware of the ethical principal that requires treating foriegn guests exactly the same as natural citizens. For the record, I'm not proposing giving guest workers the vote, either. I would like to see streamlined immigration too (maybe automatic on application after two years with a Visa and not getting in serious trouble), but that's a somewhat separate matter.

Are you aware of the ethical principle of treating others as you would be treated? For my part, I'm aware that this just doesn't apply when it comes to legality and citizenship (but shouldn't it?). Shit sandwich, and it's a big one for me.

Why would we want to catch them? Why would Homeland Security help?

For the same reason that we'd want to be able to catch an immigrant who committed a crime. I don't imagine that Homeland Security would help with that (but I often wonder if Homeland Security actually "helps" to begin with).

Why should guest workers automatically get all the same rights and privileges as natural citizens?

For the same reasons that we extend them to ourselves. Let's see what a re-write would look like

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - unless we're talking mexicans"

I'm going to add that to the end of every right, every justification. Neither you nor I would put our names on that. I think that I'd have a hard time selling that as a compromise to anyone I'd care to include in a compromise.

Why should this quibble get in the way of people actually getting to come to work in this country? 'Sorry, we almost had a guest worker program that would have let almost anyone who isn't a known criminal come to the USA legally and indefinitely, but the swab issue killed it. Maybe in another decade or two.'

It shouldn't.....but then again, I don't think that there should even be a quibble. I understand the value of pragmatism, there are very few things that I make a stand on purely for ideological grounds - but this is one of them...because as I said...I just don't think it's that hard to make -this- stand.

Slippery slope arguments tend to be fallacious, and you don't strike me as the 'FEMA death camp' type. People don't choose to be born in the USA, so natural citizens would have no way of avoiding the requirement except to 'go underground' or flee the country. In a political climate where terrorism is a leading (if overblown) concern, passage of such a guest visa program might hinge on identification issues.

Despite our -actual- terrorism issues being firmly domestic. I'm being asked to cater to the bigoted and irrational as a matter of national policy? That's going to be a pretty rough row to hoe, and the slope is indeed extremely slippery....

If you were trying to feed your family and the difference between getting in legally and having to give thousands of dollars to a coyote to smuggle you over to an existence where you're constantly looking over your shoulder for INS; and a swab would make the difference, you might see the value in compromise.

It won't make the difference. Even the legals are constantly looking over their shoulder for INS (and so are citizens of the wrong color). We're already about as ridiculous regarding this shit as I can stomach, I've had to hear these stories my whole life in the fields.

And I get your objections. I just don't think they trump letting people enter the country legally when all they want is a job. If it makes issuing guest visas palatable enough to get it happening sooner than later, I'm okay with it. I'm okay with visas that favor Mexcican and Canadian citizens over other nationalities, too.

I get that there's a tension between idealism and pragmatism. But 'best' shouldn't get in the way of 'better'.

But that -won't- make it palatable to them because that -isn't- their objection...that'll just set the bar lower and that will be the tone going forward ....the bar is already pretty low if we're discussing the merits of treating people like criminals as a rule in order to get -anything- done.......

All that said, even my modest proposal getting passed is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy in any foreseeable political climate except the realization that we need Mexicans and South Americans here to support our economy. I have some slight hope that the argument that knowing who is entering the country puts us in a better situation regarding national security than we are in currently will carry some weight, and I am heartened that over half of Americans are good with some kind of immigration reform, but I'm still not optimistic that the next change will not be 20 steps forward and 19 steps back, because of where our legislators are at.

Then perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about whether or not treating people like criminals is a good compromise, but whether or not electing those (and putting those forward for election - and putting bills forward to be passed) who would treat people like criminals is such a good idea. Focus on that until it sticks. Focus hard, focus loud, so it sticks quicker.

That we are willing to pay the price of not feeling good about our integrity if it will help desperate people who only want to make a better life for themselves.

By telling them that they can come on over, so long as we get to treat them like criminals, so long as we can put the boot on them in ways that would make us cringe, so long as they will accept what we would not? I am never going to participate in this compromise (and neither will people like me). If we want immigration reform- and if someone wants the votes necessary to put people in place- then I demand a better range of options to compromise upon, a better class of salesman. That's not an unreasonable requirement. In the meantime I'll do what I've always done, help them game and break our shitty laws. I'm not going to give the okay to some "separate but equal" bullshit...you know where I'm from.....you know why.

I'm only questioning whether or not things are actually so bad that if we spoke up this sort of compromise would be required, that this sort of compromise would be necessary (and obviously I doubt that it would even be effective anyway) - isn't it possible that if we actually gave a shit - or if someone gave us a reason to give a shit...it wouldn't be? If it is, so be it, but I still won't be a part of it - I guess we'll just have to hope that there are enough people willing to accept this sort of "business as usual" politicking?