"Legal" Immigration

re: "Legal" Immigration

Ronorama — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:22:41 GMT

Bill,

You said: "The two documents serve different purposes, and to equate them is a fallacy."

I agree completely. That's my point...that proof of citizenship reveals nothing useful about the person involved. It's a fallacy to assume that a non-citizen will behave any differently than a citizen, or that he/she has any more or less "right" to be in one country or another than anyone else.

I believe government (and a great many of the governed) DO equate the two. They believe a birth certificate (or other proof of citizenship) is necessary to prove that the individual is trustworthy, capable, responsible, etc. My argument is that one's citizenship says nothing about any of these things, so it's wrong to require it in order to allow entry into a country.

re: "Legal" Immigration

Bill — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:51:04 GMT

Your analogy of the doctor's birth certificate is faulty. The doctor presents a degree is his office because it vouches that he can indeed perform the service he provides. On the other hand, the border patrol asks for a birth certificate because it confirms a different aspect about the holder - that he is indeed a citizen of the country and is allowed to enter. The two documents serve different purposes, and to equate them is a fallacy.

A more accurate analogy would be that if you don't have money, the doctor denies you the service. If you don't have citizenship, the border patrol denies you entry.

re: "Legal" Immigration

Steve1776 — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:30:52 GMT

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison 1751-1836, Father of the Constitution for the United States, 4th United States President. Source: 1792 in disapproval of Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist some French refugees.