 |
The Wilkow Majority » Case for Impeachment?
|
boneman 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment/ |
|---|---|
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
I obviously don't get much traction on this here. But I'd argue, constitutionally, it would be a much more impeachable offense for a president to use his "executive power" to deport immigrants just for immigrating. Treating individuals who move across the border, and particularly the majority who are not violent, as if they are invaders and part of some foreign army is about the silliest sophistry and weakest defense of immigration reform I've heard. Immigration != invasion by another country. And if it does, we better start lining up at our ports to start shooting Somalis, Indians, and anyone else traveling to America. If you want to argue they are criminals because they've broken federal statutes, fine then. Argue that point. But don't sit there and try to generally equate immigrants to terrorists. Hell, even the welfare argument is more compelling than painting them as a "foreign threat" in the context of Article IV. And of course, even bringing up talk about impeachment given the make-up of the HoR seems pretty pointless. Again, conservatives are about to shoot themselves in the foot, politically, on this issue...and they don't see it. |
|
boneman 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
Your position is noted |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
Why bother responding if that's what you're offering? I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I'm just honestly inquiring... |
|
marnesdad 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
This nutbag lost me at "Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda."... Isn't he the same marshmallow that raised his hand in response to 'who doesn't believe in evolution'?? LOL... |
|
boneman 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
I responded to acknowlege I read your post and understand your position. I made no mention of anything being inflammatory. Loosen up the tighty whiteys dude. |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
I didn't say you mentioned anything being inflammatory. I was saying that my question was serious...and not inflammatory...as in, "Hey...why would you post a response that's essentially empty...I'd like to have an actual discussion." I was basically asking if you meant to say anything more and was asking you not to take it as a prodding question...which apparently you did. Not sure exactly why that happened...but alright. |
|
boneman 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
My posts on Fridays and Mondays especially through the morning generally are brief as it is in the middle of my surgery days. My 10-15 minutes between cases does not allow for lenghty responses. And no, I don't feel deportation of anybody who has violated immigration law is an impeachable offense. Anybody that wishes to come to this country under our current law is free to do so LEGALLY. And you are fine with that arguement per your post. There is also nobody equating immigrants to terrorists, but the way immigrants are openly crossing the border IS an avenue through which terrorists can enter the country as well as others with criminal records. And I agree that with the current HoR no impechment articles will be drawn up. |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
I think what would be interesting is actually talking about immigration from a socio-political perspective. It seems like at the end of the day, though, people who are big on immigration reform revert back to arguments from authority (IE: it's wrong because it's illegal). I'd posit that A.) Just because something is illegal, it doesn't make it wrong. I'd argue that there have been many things that have been legal or illegal that have been wrong/right at different times. So I think just pointing out that someone is breaking the law is a weak argument. However, if the legal argument is your cup of tea, why is it that conservatives tend to ignore the constitution when it comes to this issue? Of course, i'm talking exclusively about the federal government here (not individual states who have a much wider range of power). But whenever conservatives demand that the federal government do something they never seem to question its constitutionality. In fact, the constitutional argument for it is so weak that yes...they have to resort to wording immigration as if it's an aggressive military action that falls under executive powers to handle. Yes...the border with Mexico is a way that terrorists could come here. Then again, so is the border with Canada. So are our ports. So is getting a visa and coming here legally (like the most notable terrorists actually have). But it dodges the issue altogether. We're talking about means to ends and not actions. Owning a firearm grants you the potential to kill people. Yet simply owning a firearm is NOT killing people in and of itself. This is one of many reasons why it's silly to simply ban firearms on the grounds of stopping people from being shot. Likewise, walking down the street or driving a car (whether you cross a border or not) in and of itself could be a means for terrorist ends. It doesn't mean that we stop people from walking down the street or driving cars (whether you cross a border or not). I think, legally speaking, Arizona has every "right" to legislate on this issue as they wish (even if I think it's wrong). I think the argument for federal government to step in is more tenuous, and that point shines in light of the "foreign threat" arguments that are made in articles like this one. You may not feel like you're "equating" immigrants to terrorists - but people are certainly trying to use that angle of argument to justify doing things that many people would find deplorable if done to the average person on the street. But that's how it always happens...people are willing to throw away liberties for what they perceive to be a little safety. I just wish conservatives would be consistent about protecting freedom and taking power away from government. |
|
nav68 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
I'm not sure what your argument is here, cross. Every country in the world exercises its authority in deciding who is allowed to enter their country. It's not because of invasion exactly, it's a matter of keeping out elements that you don't want, i.e., criminals, terrorists, etc. When people illegally immigrate, they undermine the ability of the government to protect its populace from potential predators. Protecting its populace is the first duty of a government. I think the invasion rhetoric comes from the potential of terrorists to cross the border illegally with more ease if we're not vigorously enforcing the immigration laws and effectively patrolling the border. Additionally, the current violence associated with illegals is seen by some as effectively constituting an invasion of violence into the U.S. from Mexico. |
|
nav68 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
In re Tancredo's argument: like I mentioned in another post, whether or not one believes he's correct he points up something that Obama'd better take seriously. If enough conservatives are elected in November to give Republicans a majority in the House and raise their numbers in the Senate, Obama could be sailing into torpedo water on the immigration issue. |
|
boneman 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
I don't care what border it is, Canadian, Mexican, or ports on the coast the borders need to be controlled to allow for the orderly entry of persons coming to our country. Border states or any state for that matter also have a right to make there own laws regarding the handling/services offerered to illegal aliens as well. Unfortunately the current condition of states rights is very poor. |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
Nav68 - my point is that things like "Every country in the world exercises its authority in deciding who is allowed to enter their country." are not good arguments...in fact they're logical fallacies. An idea isn't good simply because other authorities say so or engage in such acts. It's not a justification for upholding slavery, curtailing free speech, or anything else a person would like to do. What I'm saying is that we should talk about the actual issue and not whether an action is "legal" or what institutions (government or otherwise) approve of it. If the current administration ushered in a new law that restricted your right to openly criticize them, it wouldn't be enough to say "Well every country does this" or "No, you can't say that. It's illegal! if you speak 'legally' you won't have any issues." No, we're talking about whether something is wrong or right...not if it violates law or runs contrary to para-governmental policies elsewhere. If your sense of right and wrong stops at whatever the government says, then you have no philosophy worth discussing. As far as protecting the populace, I would argue that yes, this is the government's primary duty. But, once again, this does not legitimize ANY and ALL actions they may take in the name of safety. You could just as easily try to justify outlawing guns or even cars in the same manner. Conservatives aren't making any political distinctions as to what (if any) limits the federal government has in this regard. And, as has been the case for the last several years, they've been using 9-11 and terrorism in general to curb liberties (even though I don't think it's their intention). Whenever they want to do something questionably un-constitutional or depreciative in regards to civil liberties, the only rhetorical fall-back is that it's for our safety, and I guess we're all supposed to throw our hands up and accept it. Well i'm sorry, but if the government decides to confiscate firearms, shut down roads, outlaw aircraft, monitor my financial transactions, or give me a curfew, it doesn't make it "right" just because you do it in the name of public safety. Conservatives are being hypocritical on the immigration issue both in terms of the federal constitution and in terms of political philosophy. The same ridiculous claims about the government protecting the public can (and are) made by every fervent liberal socialist out there who is trying to curtail YOUR rights in the process of achieving their political ends. They don't have a problem seeing through it on many issues...but on immigration, they're anti-liberty and pro-big-government. If the problem is violent crime, you address the people committing the violent crime. It's not an excuse to curtail EVERYONE ELSE's rights...you don't get to justify using coercion against an entire group just because SOME of them commit violent crimes. This is why conservatives are getting painted as racist in this regard. Their rhetoric is tribal and nationalistic. It's not in line with their own proclaimed general economic or political views. In fact, you practically have to twist the traditional philosophical views into pretzel knots to get a view this contradictory. Violent crime, wealth redistribution, national defense - deal with these issues; they are very real. But don't go tearing down the very foundations of your political ideology in the process. |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
Boneman - I'm not sure what you mean by "orderly entry"...I don't think people would be stumbling over each other in a violent fervor if we had a more open border policy. As far as the federal government is concerned, if you want to have people monitor the border to make sure people aren't bringing in illegal contraband or the like, I think that's fine - even constitutional. But throwing huge barriers up for people simply wanting to travel across the border (for work or leisure) I think is an affront to what this country was about (at least at one point)...and we have quite an interesting history regarding that issue. As far as you comment about "states rights" (which is an odd term btw), I think you're perfectly right in the legal sense. I think what the people are doing in AZ is crazy and immoral. But I don't think the federal government has a legal leg to stand on in trying to stop them from doing it. So you won't find any argument from me on those grounds. |
|
boneman 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
The same "orderly entry" required of me or anybody who travels anywhere in the world; passport, birth certificate, or whatever to show your identity and intentions for going to those countries. Each state has a right to make its own laws and that is something our country was founded upon. I you don't like what state A has for laws, work to change the laws or move to state B, if you don't like what all states have for laws then people can go to another country. |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
Like I said, I have no quarrels with what you said legally. And obviously, I'd much rather live with power separated between 50 states than one massive federal government deciding the issues. As far as "orderly entry", do you think that producing a birth certificate or proclaiming my intentions stops me from committing crimes, here or abroad? I'm not sure if moving through a legal framework does anything to stop me from committing a crime unless I've notably committed previous crimes. It definitely didn't stop the 9-11 hijackers. I think the rhetoric around the "safety" that comes with passports and other identification is a little pedantic - especially considering the nature of most of the ACTUAL terrorist acts that have been committed on our soil. The conversation is obviously more complex than this. |
|
boneman 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
Well since the 14th amendment and the subsequent Courts misinterpretation of its intent, the states have progressively had less and less power. And as far as "...do you think that producing a birth certificate or proclaiming my intentions stops me from committing crimes, here or abroad?" No more than having a drivers license can keep you from speeding or having a concealed carry permit can prevent you from killing somebody. That being said I have no problem having a drivers license or concealed carry license or adhereing to the laws of the society I live in. I also am willing to accept the responsibilities that go with both. At present we do have LAWS that as a member of this country need to be enforced. |
|
nav68 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
cross, your arguments about the federal government's attempts to protect through various laws seems simplistic, to say the least. The rest of the verbiage aside, immigration laws are a way to address certain areas associated with violent crime by keeping it from crossing the border. Coercion against an entire group? What group is that? Illegal aliens? Curtail everyone else's rights? Whose rights are being curtailed? You seem to think that the immigration laws are being used against any and all immigratnts. They aren't. They're being used to screen who comes to this country. And your argument about something being considered right because everyone else is doing it seems to indicate that you don't believe that the immigration laws should exist. There's a difference in how laws are used. Mexico for instance has immigration laws, that, in their enforcement, are cause for complaints from human rights groups. That doesn't mean that Mexico doesn't have a right to control immigration into Mexico. It means that they abuse the right to control immigration. And their execution of immigration law is not ours. |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
Again, I agree with what you're saying constitutionally. Although if you're really gung-ho about the constitution, I think digging a little deeper into the federal government's history with immigration might be of value, or at least interest (it's why I think that conservatives aren't being consistent on immigration). As far as the driver's license, I think what's really going on is a little more subtle than people realize. They get away with a lot of what they do because the roads are considered "public" property - which in political speak means government property essentially. So they get to set the rules for anyone who uses public roads. This allows them to get away with a lot of things they wouldn't normally be able to get away with on private property. So from that perspective, and from the general perspective of sweeping state power, I'm not arguing that a state doesn't have the legal power to do something like this. I'm arguing that it's not the proper course to take. But again, to reiterate my earlier point, it seems the simple claim is that we need to have stricter immigration/identification laws for public safety. But, as we've both acknowledged, that in and of itself doesn't keep anyone from committing (other) crimes. We both understand this. You closed your comment by reiterating that we have laws that need to be enforced. Alright, that's a general statement but I also believe that some laws should be enforced obviously. But I have a general precept for what is a "good" law and what is a "bad" law...so I don't simply conclude that because something is a law, it should be enforced. Much in the same way that I can look at the Health Care mandate that passed and not have to conclude that it is also good - just because a majority followed through with a vote in the affirmative. I'm willing to adhere to the JUST laws of the society I live in. I would argue that, at the very least, there's no virtue in adhering to laws that are actually bad - especially those who harm people. And in fact, I'd argue that doing so is often immoral. So this is what I'm saying: the argument that we should follow a law simply because it's a law is a bad one. Likewise, the argument that a stricter or "more orderly" process is needed to curtail crime also seems like a bad argument. So far, the welfare argument is the best argument I've heard, and that seems pretty weak to me for many of the same reasons that the "safety" issue seems weak. So I'm asking conservatives to better justify their position, especially in the regards that it stands somewhat contrary to natural law (which they claim to uphold) and the intent of the federal constitution (at least for those clamoring for the federal government to handle immigration). I'm not trying to poke eyes here. I'm just saying that I think the arguments in favor of tighter immigration regulation is tenuous...and I want to see if any conservatives on that side of the issue can give me better arguments. |
|
crossofcrimson 1 month, 2 weeks ago |
nav68 - Actually my argument is that the conservative defense of stricter immigration laws is too simplistic (which is why I used analogies that entail similarly simplistic logic). There are several pushes for different pieces of legislation in different capacities here so it's hard to generalize, but...if a police officer is going to have the power to demand my identification - not simply when using THEIR roads, or committing crimes, but to it's own end - I think that's coercive. I think when people are pushing for the federal government to control peaceful people moving across our border - I think that's coercive AND unconstitutional. And no, I don't believe that immigration laws should exist - especially not on a federal level. They didn't for over 100 years. I have a LEGAL problem with federal immigration laws. I have a PHILOSOPHICAL problem with immigration laws in general. I have issues with it for the same reason that I'd have issues with the government drawing a line straight through the center of your city and compelling you to spend years and thousands of dollars to approve you for crossing that line. Yes, I think that's coercive. And I think it presumes contradictory notions about the private ownership of land. I'm not saying that the US are the worst offenders. I'm not trying to compare it to slavery or anything like that either. I'm simply saying I think it's wrong, ethically. |
Post a Reply
Please login to post a reply.