Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Souderwan, Jun 30, 2007.
*grabs his popcorn and enjoys the debate*
Logical consistency I liked how you ran with his arguments, Jello. +3
General entertainment value LOL @ that first line. +3
Enforcement is one of the main problems with the current policy, yes, but its too late to try to enforce a policy the some might have already worked around. Why enforce a policy that is long dead? Hopes that it will come back fully with a vengeance? I don't believe on spending human labor and time on hopes for hopes are not strong foundations and reasons for wasting valuable time.
And since you argue that they should be enforced, for they haven't been, why weren't they enforced in the first place? Maybe the government itself didn't believe in the policy in the first place and just set it to lead the people into a false sense of protection for years.
Sadly, I knew this would make me feel dumb.
Still, smart guys are hawt.
I also missed the eidt and am very curious.
Excellent overall points, Blu! +2
Logical consistency: Nice job. +4
Readability: Need some more work here, but better. +2
Why weren't they enforced, you ask? I'll tell you: there were far too many vested interests involved. These run the gamut from business lobbeys to political tacticians weighing the value of appearing to be 'friendly to the disenfranchised minorities.' They have sold out our country for the sake of money and power. It had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the policy: this is the United States Federal Government we are speaking of, effectiveness is not a word you'll find in a single one of their policy manuals!
So if many others have worked around our policy, will any new policy make up for that deficiency? You present questions but you do not present answers. If a new policy shall not change that what has already transpired but only the future, then so will enforcing the current laws.
Tell me, sir, why should we waste valuable human labour and time on hopes for a completely unproven and untried method? Your claims, sir, are unsubstantiated fantasy.
Nice rebuttal, Jello!
Unnecessary crack about lack of effectiveness in my Federal government: -2
Ok, Blu. You get the last word before the question and answer session. In this session, the audience may pepper the contestants with questions for 30 mins.
Fantasy? Fantasy is thinking that a policy played around with and worked around over the years can bring its tired solutions back with alittle elbow grease.
A new policy can answer the current problems by bringing new solutions to the frontlines instead of using the same solutions over and over. You can put 4 into the problem 2+2 and have a correct answer, but you cannot put 4 in every other problem and hope that it will equal the same thing over and over again.
New problems need new answers, not old answers enforced harder.
I do not claim that a new policy will be perfect, for every generation will encounter its share of problems, but the smart generation will realize that you have to change and adapt to survive.
Your best post so far, Blu! Nicely done!
Logical consistency: A solid +5
Coherence: Well done here, as well. +3
Ok, Audience! They're all yours. Please put your questions to our players!
While the audience ponders a good question, I'll pose one for both players:
Is the problem of illegal immigration significant enough to warrant any significant change at all, including stepping up enforcement?
One should hope so, sir, since it is the topic under discussion. If an issue is important enough to discuss, then it is a significant issue. Further: if it is significant enough to garner nation attention from advocates and opponents alike, then it is a significant issue. Anything that the People deem to be important is such, ex facto.
I shall not violate the canons of classical rhetoric by providing charts and quotations from others. This would be a grave violation and it would be unworthy to force my hand in that fashion. Instead, I shall make it plain by tautology: it is significant because we are discussing it. Were it not, then there would be no such discussion.
This is simple logic.
I think so, Souderwan.
The violation of our policy is good enough for a change in itself, not to mention with increasing numbers of illegal immigrants coming across the border.
America is called the the of freedom, but despite what some people think, there is a cost for freedom. You must follow the right orders and work hard for it, not just crossing a border. Vigilantes are people who don't go by the book and that is against the law. Illegal Immigrants don't go by the book, and that too, is illegal.
The stealing of jobs from the ones who have worked to get here by ones who have just slid by is wrong. Able bodied americans need those jobs and they are being taken from them. I'm not standing up and screaming, "Those peopel are taking all our jobs." For some people complain about that, but don't want to work the jobs that have been taken because they think they are too good for them, yet want to get angry when they are taken. I'm speaking for the homeless who need those jobs and are willing to work them, but can't.
So, yes, the problem is significant enough for change to happen.
Haha! Wonderful try, Jello. Alas, the simple fact that one discusses something does not give it significance and you know it. If this were true, Britney Spears' lack of underwear would be significant.
You would have been better off posting some of those charts...
Logic: Deeply flawed. +0
General Entertainment value: I did laugh out loud when I read it. So +4
Very well, Blu. Like Jello, you posted no evidence and that hurts you. However, your logic is much more fully developed. Jello will need to be careful or you might overtake him.
I am very consciously posting in this manner, and I shall not violate classical standards for the sake of points. Just because you know I could doesn't mean I will. Honesty still means something to me.
I await the next question.
I'm going to throw this out here a bit to slide away from generalities and get into a bit of specifics.
Since I have a relative that works for the U.S. Border Patrol, I've kept up on the controversial Minuteman Project and its numerous successors and affiliates.
The Project was formed a few years back and involves a number of American citizens who patrol the borders - mostly the southern border with Mexico - with the express goal of deterring illegal crossings by undocumented peoples.
What are your opinions on such an organization? Is there a place for them in the immigration debate? Is this the wrong way to approach border enforcement?
Is the Minuteman Project a symptom of poor federal enforcement on a burgeoning immigration problem, forcing ordinary citizens to take up the helm where enforcement, not Washington policy, has fallen short?
Or are these overzealous folks who represent a failure in the national approach to the issue itself a symptom instead of the problem with United States immigration policy as it currently stands?
Maybe they're just getting in the way of paid professionals.
What are your opinions on groups like the Minutemen?
We have time for one more question before I have to wrap this up. Audience?
Edit: Good question! We'll use this as our last one.
Jello, don't be like that.
I could do alot of things, but doesn't mean I do. Like looking up google for naked me- I mean women, but I choose not to.
EDIT: Time to get back to work.
What would you recommend the US do, under current policy or future policy, with the 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently here?
You guys can answer both questions (give you maximum chance for points). I'll be back with assessments in about 15 min. Good luck. Think through your responses.
Exeter's Question: What are your opinions of groups like the Minutemen?
My opinion of groups like the Minutemen is that they shouldn't even be out there. These are the type of things that calls for a new policy.
Calling normal citizens, who may have mixed views on people who are trying to sneak across the borders, could be a dangerous thing. They may hurt the immigrants instead of trying to just keep them from crossing. For the U.S to even allow this to occur, is a sign of them not being able, or not wanting, to get paid professionals to handle this.
It causes too much attention to be drawn to itself and not the actual problem, also. Only preventing people from getting down to the bottom of it and trying to change it. If people really wanted to change things and help out, why not go into the profession of border patrol, instead of just doing as a pastime.
Its an organization that didn't need to exist and is only having problems within itself now with the fake murder videotape, causing and drawing media attention to itself. It wouldn't need to exist if the government would step up to the plate.
Healer_Leona's Question: What would you recommend the US do, under current policy or future policy, with the 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently here?
As far as I'm concerned, the current policy cannot fix the problem now, as the number of illegal immigrants here now obviously shows.
The new policy, if one should arise, should first address the border problem, keeping more Illegal Immigrants from coming and whick would adding to the current problem. After doing that, what would be best, but would take many years, is probably then try to go and find current immigrants and try to get them to register and become actual citizens and maybe even try to use their numbers and offer them jobs on border patrol, which would surly make the new policy even stronger in its border control.
The Minuteman project is a vigilante group--they are modern day Myrimidons. They are a sad consequence of the government's distinct failure at enforcement, and a demonstration that the issue is significant enough to raise popular outrage.
They may profess a noble goal: that is, to aide the government in enforcing the laws it is unable to by spotting violators and reporting them to the border patrol. However laudatory one may wish to be, let us hold back the panegyrics for a moment and consider the consequences of such a vigilante movement.
The movement is participating in the capture of foreign nationals of a particular ethnic group. This leaves them vulnerable to disruption, particularly from civil rights advocacy groups and foreign ministries. Their conduct, however good, is spoiled by the few inevitable glitches and has a deleterious effect on the perception of the United States abroad. The vigilantes have no national defense mandates or diplomatic representation, and their mistakes are grave embarassments to the United States abroad.
The Minutemen lack the resources and the deniability of a governmental agency. As such, their mission is one that cannot be endorsed by the United States or its citizens. Their very existence, indeed, should be a clarion call to the gentlemen on the Hill: lawmakers and officials alike ought to take the movement as representation of rallying citizens and take it as a sign that change is required. Indeed, even those in opposition to enforcement also should take the message as presented by the minutemen as a message for change, even though their own perception of said change will be different.
Proud men and women in uniform ought to be at the border: whether that uniform be the grey-green of the border patrol or the tan fatigues of the military is a question for another day. The border ought not, however, be manned by individuals in straw hats and Hawaiian t-shirts.
We consider the great lawmaker Solon's answer to immigration a sound one: restrict the current migratory flow but provide for the sustanance of those who have already arrived. This solution is optimal, as it provides a compromise for both sides that even Henry Clay would be proud of.
It is an arduous task to forcibly deport over ten million people. It is neither recommended nor required. Rather: their regularization into the American mainstream will not only satisfy the advocacy groups but it will also present a sop to nativist groups as well. It is an imperfect solution that will leave neither side fully satisfied, but it is one that is lacking in this day and age. This is the multimedia age, where short attention spans and all-or-nothing approaches to policy characterize the myopic vision of policy-makers and the electorate.
The flexible ability to compromise* once proved itself the hallmark of our Republic and the reason that this 'democratic experiment' lasted far longer than the mere five years that European powers credited it. While it has been abandoned for the sake of expediency and self-indulgence, it is not entirely lost--indeed, it is part of the fundamentional American psyche. There is no all-or-nothing approach that will work with the immigration situation.
However, enforcement coupled with willing integration of the existing illegal immigrant populace will provide a solution that will work, if not fully satisfy the widely differing factions.
*Nota Bene: Witness the Dinner Table Compromise and the Missouri Compromise, which had enduring effects on the permanent political landscape of the nation. Witness the Corrupt Bargain and the Kansas-Nebraska acts, which had decidedly less satisfactory but no less important changes to the nation. We stand at the threshold of a new age--a compromise may carry us forth into the hallway of prosperity and mirth rather than the hovel of poverty and misery.
Thanks for the answer and making me think.
Jello, if you think a compromise is in order, or at least think that one would be good for us, why are you so stern in the enforcing the old policy?
Compromising would bring a new policy, by taking the old ideas and combining them with the new ideas would consequently bring a change. How can you say you want one now, but want to keep enforcing the policy of old?
On the first question: You provided no evidence, but you did answer the question fully, so nice job there.
Logical consistency:. +4
General entertainment value: Not a whole lot here. +1
On the second question:
Logical consistency:. +3
General entertainment value: Also, not much here. +1
On the first question: Extremely well-presented classical rhetoric. Normally, I?d dock you for the lack of evidence, but since your opponent provided none either, I?ll just leave you both on that one.
Logical consistency:. +4
General entertainment value: Not particularly amusing, but very good, nonetheless. +3
On the second question:
Logical consistency:. +4
General entertainment value: Also, not much here. +3