MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, October 24, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 49.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

The Immigration Debate

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby snoqueen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:28 pm

Oh, come on. You're doing a D'man and making up the most preposterous imaginable extension of something someone else said in order to maintain whatever point you're trying to make. France is not about to start executing foreigners for having a baby in France and we both know it.

The idea of the countries of the world extending relatively non-controversial human rights or benefits to one another's citizens is sound enough to be discussed on its own terms, without making up crazy red herring slippery-slope possibilities.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11631
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:42 pm

snoqueen wrote:Oh, come on. You're doing a D'man and making up the most preposterous imaginable extension of something someone else said in order to maintain whatever point you're trying to make. France is not about to start executing foreigners for having a baby in France and we both know it.
Reductio ad absurdum is used to more clearly demonstrate the absurdity of a line of argument. It is completely valid as a point of discussion.
snoqueen wrote:The idea of the countries of the world extending relatively non-controversial human rights or benefits to one another's citizens is sound enough to be discussed on its own terms, without making up crazy red herring slippery-slope possibilities.
No, you are missing the point. Discussing non-controversial human rights can be discussed on it's own terms. International legal reciprocity is unrelated. Actually, the laws of other countries are irrelevant entirely - all we need to do is decide what policies should be enacted within the US.

Here's a more believable example, since you seem to balk at more extreme but completely logical examples: France does not allow birthright citizenship, but Canada does (these are facts)

Should we grant the American-born children of Canadian parents US citizenship, but not those of French parents, based on your concept of international reciprocity?

I'd argue that we should grant both sets of children citizenship, independent of any consideration of legal reciprocity. How's that?
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby bleurose » Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:03 pm

Thanks, everyone. Although there were several more questions raised, you have given me some things to mull over. Right now, I happen to like Sno's outlook and that is that generally, our world is more global than we typically think about and maybe it is time to consider not defining ourselves by individual country "citizenship". Rather, we are all natives of the world, we just happen to live in one location or another.

Of course, that set-up would also require lots of adjusting (mental/emotional, societal, political, etc.). But it is an idea worth thinking about anyway.
bleurose
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Bland » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:04 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:Reductio ad absurdum is used to more clearly demonstrate the absurdity of a line of argument. It is completely valid as a point of discussion.
Unfortunately for you, what you employed was a straw man argument as there are no countries anywhere which execute foreigners for having babies nor have there ever been as near as I can tell. So your idiotic "what if" scenario does not logically follow from Sno's assertion that the U.S. should reciprocate basic human rights which are practiced by the majority of the world. While you could easily have used reductio ad absurdum to make your case (should we outlaw women drivers in order to reciprocally appease Saudi Arabia?), you chose instead to make an argument completely detached from reality. Your "point" has no value whatsoever.
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:16 pm

Bland wrote:Unfortunately for you, what you employed was a straw man argument as there are no countries anywhere which execute foreigners for having babies nor have there ever been as near as I can tell.
My example was a textbook reductio ad absurdum. I didn't put words or ideas in Sno's mouth, nor anyone else. Moreover, I gave a clarifying example (that you've ignored) that is based on actual legal realities, not hypotheticals of any degree of extremity.

Bland wrote:So your idiotic "what if" scenario does not logically follow from Sno's assertion that the U.S. should reciprocate basic human rights which are practiced by the majority of the world.
The "basic human right" in question (birthright citizenship for children of foreign parents) is, in fact, not respected by the majority of nations of the world.
Bland wrote:While you could easily have used reductio ad absurdum to make your case (should we outlaw women drivers in order to reciprocally appease Saudi Arabia?), you chose instead to make an argument completely detached from reality. Your "point" has no value whatsoever.
Your example is valid and serves to advance my point that international legal reciprocity should have no bearing on decisions about US domestic policy.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Bland » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:31 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:I didn't put words or ideas in Sno's mouth, nor anyone else.
You certainly did.
Sno said there was a "reciprocal quality to this practice that would be valuable in international relations." (remember? You quoted as much and even highlighted the word reciprocal) You then used as an example to refute her position a scenario which is not a practice in any nation and therefore could not be adopted under her stated guidelines. The scenario you postulated cannot be reciprocated, and therefore can have no value for international relations, as it is imaginary. Hello, straw man!

ArturoBandini wrote:The "basic human right" in question (birthright citizenship for children of foreign parents) is, in fact, not respected by the majority of nations of the world.
It isn't?
You may be right.
Anyone actually have some evidence one way or the other?
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:42 pm

Bland wrote:You then used as an example to refute her position a scenario which is not a practice in any nation and therefore could not be adopted under her stated guidelines. The scenario you postulated cannot be reciprocated, and therefore can have no value for international relations, as it is imaginary. Hello, straw man!
Why could my hypothetical not be reciprocated? I recognize that it is an extreme (nay, absurd?) extension of the concept of legal reciprocity. There's a fine line between straw man and reductio ad absurdum. In this case, it depends on whether you frame my hypothetical as a question to Sno, e.g. "Would your principle apply in this extreme example?", instead of an assertion, e.g. "So, you're saying that we should execute foreigners because another country does?".

Bland wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:The "basic human right" in question (birthright citizenship for children of foreign parents) is, in fact, not respected by the majority of nations of the world.
It isn't?
You may be right.
Anyone actually have some evidence one way or the other?

Jus soli. Only 30 nations recognize birthright citizenship as of 2013. As of 2004, no European nation recognizes birthright citizenship unconditionally.

edit: 30, not 34, nations
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Bland » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:46 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:Why could my hypothetical not be reciprocated?
Something imaginary cannot be reciprocated.
For goodness' sakes, isn't that obvious?

Thanks for the actual info, though. It's much more useful (and germane) than the rest of your nonsense.
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:54 pm

Bland wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:Why could my hypothetical not be reciprocated?
Something imaginary cannot be reciprocated.
For goodness' sakes, isn't that obvious?
I said, "could [not]", not "cannot". It's like saying, "What would your likely response be to this hypothetical situation?" If a guy on the street flipped you off for no good reason (imaginary hypothetical), could you reciprocate? Would you?
Bland wrote:Thanks for the actual info, though. It's much more useful (and germane) than the rest of your nonsense.
It's the second time I linked the stats. If you weren't so busy spazzing out over a rhetorical quibble, you'd have seen that. Not that rhetorical quibbles aren't fun, of course.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Bland » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:58 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:If a guy on the street flipped you off for no good reason (imaginary hypothetical)

There is no comparison between a hypothetical which falls within the realm of reality and one which does not. Only your stubbornness prevents you from acknowledging this.

ArturoBandini wrote: If you weren't so busy spazzing out over a rhetorical quibble
If you weren't such an ass, people wouldn't routinely get annoyed by your absurdities.
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby snoqueen » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:30 pm

I'd still like to discuss the possibility people are first world citizens and secondarily citizens of one or more individual countries. If we are all world citizens (and equal ones), for countries to extend citizenship to one another's citizens (newborn or not) seems less like poaching and more fluid. People in the US can move freely from state to state with very minimal residency requirements. Why should citizens not move that freely from nation to nation? We are not the possessions of our national governments, after all.

I'm surprised Arturo doesn't want to discuss this idea. He's usually quite disdainful of governments and seems to see their powers as illegitimate. Why should they then have rights similar to ownership over the nationality of their residents?

Newborn babies being citizens of whatever country they're born in is only the beginning, the more I think of it. Maybe a reasonable end goal would be to have people be legal residents of whatever country they happen to be living in, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. You could travel without changing residency (citizenship, whatever) but once you met minimal standards similar to US state residency, you'd be a resident of wherever you were. Is the whole idea of citizenship as conceived today obsolete? How did it get started in the first place? What's its modern-day value?
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11631
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby pjbogart » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:32 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:Not that rhetorical quibbles aren't fun, of course.


Maybe for you. Derailing discussions seems to be your specialty. Did you have anything to add to the immigration debate?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6169
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:46 pm

snoqueen wrote:I'm surprised Arturo doesn't want to discuss this idea. He's usually quite disdainful of governments and seems to see their powers as illegitimate. Why should they then have rights similar to ownership over the nationality of their residents?
Huh? I said this earlier:
In an ideal world, there would be no state to be a citizen of, and everyone could just work, live and play anywhere they wanted without legal restriction.
and this:
I'd argue that we should grant both sets of children citizenship, independent of any consideration of legal reciprocity.
I have no problems with free movement of peoples between "nations" or regions. However, I won't hesitate to point out that unrestricted immigration policies combined with similarly unrestricted state welfare programs are a recipe for fiscal disaster. You can have both, it's just not a great idea.
snoqueen wrote:Is the whole idea of citizenship as conceived today obsolete? How did it get started in the first place? What's its modern-day value?
Now you're sounding like a libertarian!
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby snoqueen » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:42 pm

About certain things, I am with you more often than probably anyone else who writes here. For instance, on a practical level I think we should support gay marriage because it makes people happy and is fair, but ideally I think government would get out of the marriage business completely and leave it to religions. I don't think it's the government's business at all. There's a big distinction between "ideally" and "pragmatically," see?

Same goes for a few other topics. Still, I believe we will always have a government, we might as well have one we can participate in and help run, and that government can be a force for good. So somewhere in between the marriage thing and that global statement, we part company.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11631
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:52 pm

snoqueen wrote:About certain things, I am with you more often than probably anyone else who writes here.

I used to have a lot more sympathy for many libertarian arguments until I started trying to have rational conversations about them with our resident libertidiot. Arturo has done more to convince me that it's a dead-end political philosophy than any other single factor. I never want to be as horrible of a person, nor as disconnected from reality as he seems.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar