[freshfunk]

You're framing the argument in a way that makes your position stronger and his weaker. But, in your framing, I think you miss some basic points.

For me, it comes down to what he said here: >Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line.

The thing is that everyone else who is in the line is also hoping for a better life. So what justifies someone cutting?

In this specific case, he had no choice in the matter (put on a plane as a kid) so I think he should be allowed to stay. But every other adult is, in my opinion, cutting in line.

[dennisgorelik]

Instead of comparing illegal immigrants against legal immigrants, focus on comparing illegal immigrants against citizens who got their privileges by birth.

Share with us why immigrants are discriminated against and if this discrimination is fair.

[freshfunk]

Again, you're just reframing the argument in order to make it convenient for yourself.

I understand your position and, philosophically, it's an interesting one to take. But if you take your position to the extreme then there should be NO concept of citizenry.

It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world. In the world, we are citizens of nations and citizenship is defined by laws. In the US, that citizenship can be given through birth.

Is that fair? Maybe not. But life's not fair. America has established a legal immigration system in order to (try to) make it fair. Simply ignoring that whole system and questioning the basic order of things seems like just an excuse to cut in line.

[wnight]

> if you take your position to the extreme then there should be NO concept of citizenry.

Yeah. It's just what the first people to go somewhere say when someone else tries to join them. "Take off, we first settlers don't want you here."

We don't recognize first-posters as owning the thread, or (except in the USA) first-solvers owning the formula, so why should we recognize first-squatters owning the land?

> It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world.

Not at all. The concept of doing whatever you want is firmly established in the real world. Your adoptive countrymen weren't welcomed here (or at least, not in much of 'here'). They came by force and trick, murdering and stealing.

At least today's undocumented immigrants live in peace.

[freshfunk]

> At least today's undocumented immigrants live in peace.

Did you RTA? The whole article was about how he lives in constant fear. OTOH, my parents were legal immigrants and have no guilt over the british colonists who took this land over from the native americans. Same goes for me.

You can stick your head in the sand but, at the end of the day, you still have to obey the laws of the country you're in. Even if you join a cult or live in the remote mountains of Montana, you're still bound by law. This is true for you and for people who come here illegally.

[wnight]

No, at least today's immigrant is living at peace with you - not killing you for your place in line, as our country's founders did for their place in line. I feel an honest refugee would be a better neighbor than someone who'd hold the lack of paperwork over someone's head.

You really don't have much to complain about.

As for law though, and obeying it, no. No, you don't have to obey the laws of the land you're in. In fact, there are times no good person would do so. It's just rules other people made up, not 'right'.

You're right I can't change the law but I can undermine it - make it easier to break and escape punishment for. Waste resources chasing ghosts instead of waging war and evicting the needy.

[dennisgorelik]

America established immigration system in order to make it NOT fair [for immigrants].

Prior to introducing that immigration system there was no legal discrimination by country of origin.

Whether there should be no concept of citizenry is a different topic outside of scope of this discussion.

[freshfunk]

How is it not fair? Because you say so? Because you disagree with the system?

Is it more fair to have a free for all where people sneak in?

It's convenient to say something is not fair as justification to break all the rules.

[dennisgorelik]

By default discrimination is not fair. Sometimes discrimination is justified (e.g. thieves are sent to prison because they harm society).

But what is the justification for discriminating immigrants?

[freshfunk]

While you understand the definition of discrimination, you fail to understand the concept and it's legal use.

Discrimination, in the legal sense, says that there should be no prejudice against people by race, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other protected groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

But legal status is _NOT_ a protected group.

Here's another way to look at it:

Criminals lose rights. They lose the right to roam freely in public among many other freedoms. Some of them lose the right to vote. By your definition, we discriminate against criminals since we treat them differently than we do law-abiding citizens.

Do you disagree with the disparity in this treatment?

Many people see illegal immigrants as breaking the law. Ergo the use of the word "illegal." Many people see them as criminals.

Ergo, differential treatment (or discrimination) is justified.

Even outside of these concepts, discrimination happens all the time. When people apply for a job, the smarter, more qualified candidate is discriminated against lesser candidates. Is this not fair?

When the NFL drafts certain players over others, that's discrimination. Is this not fair?

Anytime a person is chosen over another, you have discrimination. Your assertion that it is inherently unfair is wrong.