On 8 May 2006 11:48:57 -0700, "Zerge" wrote:
>
>Zox wrote:
>> This is interesting...
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/mexico.html
>
>Some of the points are correct, but there's plenty of bullshit mixed in
>too.
>
>I don't know why you people bother with so many arguments; there's one
>argument that pretty much covers the whole issue: first and foremost,
>it is ILLEGAL. Period.
>
>HOWEVER, once you have defined that it is illegal, you CAN proceed to
>make SANE arguments of why it SHOULND'T be illegal. Then you have a
>RATIONAL discussion, such as:
>
>Person A: "It should be legal because it is good for the economy"
"good for the economy" is way too ambiguous. What part of the economy?
If the rich get richer and everyone else loses, is that "good for the
economy" if GDP increases? You could write a thesis and more on what
that means.
>Person B: "It is good only for PART of the economy, namely, employers,
>but it hurts poor Americans"
Again, way too restrictive. What parts? Hurts how much and in what
ways? What about nonemployers who are not the poorest?
>Person A: "Well, then we can tax employers and use those taxes to help
>poor Americans"
Yes, by enforcing immigration laws so that the tax becomes having to
pay enough to hire Americans.
>etc.
>
>To argue whether the Southwest belonged to Mexico, or whether Mexicans
>are nice or family oriented, or what the Mexican National Anthem says,
>or whatever is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
Absolutley. And the only reason this all focuses on Mexico is because
they comprise a majority of the illegals. If the border were with
China and over 60% of illegals were Chinese, the issue would become
entangled with perceptions of China. In a similar vein, how active
would the Latino Al Sharptons be illegals were 80% Asian and 15%
Latino?
>But again, I don't expect most of you people from having such rhetoric
>sophistication. Sorry for the insult, but that's the way it is.
This was completely unecessary. Instead of being insulted, I'll just
consider the source. |