Rush thinks amnesty will be next...

[Godless Libertarian]

Oh FFS...

This thread was intended to be a discussion about the next progressive reform following the passage of the healthcare bill, which one particular media personality believes will be amnesty for immigrants, and whether we agree with that assessment.

There's a lot of room for topic drift and I don't care if there's a couple cheese-and-bacon posts here and there, but for crying out loud, don't use MY GODDAMN THREAD as a launchpad for anti-american SPAM.

[maiforpeace]

Heard him say on the radio today that now that the healthcare bill has passed, the dems will pursue amnesty for "illegal" immigrants as the next big issue.

Agree / disagree?

Personally I hope he's right. Amnesty would be a huge step forward compared to this "fences with guns" nonsense I hear from the minutemen types.

Useful statistic: 59% of Americans still agree with building a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.

If they're legal they have to pay taxes.

Did you know that many illegal immigrants already pay taxes?

I do volunteer work helping illegal immigrants apply for green cards, and the beginning of the process involves getting them ITN numbers so they can pay taxes to show their willingness to contribute to the system. Of course, they don't get to be eligible for any of the services they are paying taxes into though until, and/or if they become permanent residents.

Yeah, let's kick all the immigrants out and back to where they came from.

[Pappa]

Yeah, let's kick all the immigrants out and back to where they came from.

Yeah! Especially the Hispanics, and the African-Americans, and the Irish, and the Chinese, and the Scottish and Germans and Italian and all the other Europeans! And the ones who came over the Bering land bridge!!!! Damn fucking immigrants!

[Godless Libertarian]

Frankly, if they can be forgiven for violating immigration law, then I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to violate some laws myself.

You are absolutely correct. For instance: if you are a pot-smoker, you should be able to violate the laws against pot smoking, because pot-smoking harms no one else.

What if I said any one of the following:

• I'm for legal pot-smoking but I'm against illegal pot-smoking
• I'm for legal arson but I'm against illegal arson
• I'm for legal rape but I'm against illegal rape

You would quickly realize that either the action mentioned is either unethical or NOT unethical. Why shouldn't the laws around each action be based on whether they harm other people (i.e. whether they are unethical)?

Now let's apply it to the topic at hand:

• I'm for legal immigration but I'm against illegal immigration.

Obviously, either the action of moving to a new place is unethical or it is NOT unethical. I see no reason why failing to jump through legal hoops and red tape can be used as justification for walling people out or deporting them. "Guilty til proved innocent" is what this amounts to.