Oh my!

[Peaches]

The farming industry, has started to comply with not hiring illegal immigrants, they are following federal law. Well, guess what? *is speechless* A judge said that illegal immigrants can now sue the farming industry for firing them on the basis of being illegal. GO FIGURE!

[Deth]

What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Peaches]

It was just on cnn, and my jaw literally dropped to the floor. Still haven't picked it up!

[LaughingOtter]

I sense a strong undertone to this thread that borders on racism. Aren't such posts prohibited by forum guidelines?

[Peaches]

Your reading into it too much, I simply posted what I just heard on the news, but thank you, for bringing it to attention, I can assure you that there is no undertone whatsoever.

[Gwenalyn]

I don't see any "racial undertones"... just another example of how wierd our country is lol :P

[Kerech]

It has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with the fact that these people are here illegally!! but the judge is extending citizens' rights to them

[LaughingOtter]

That's quite a relief to hear, Peaches; perhaps I'm too used to seeing the overt racism that taints certain aspects of the national debate on the issue.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Khosadan]

It has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with the fact that these people are here illegally!! but the judge is extending citizens' rights to them

Exactly. What's the point of being a 'citizen' if the leaders dont really care and gives those benefits and protection to any foreign joe who wanders into the country illegally, even breaking the law? Even -punishing- business-owners who try to uphold the COUNTRY'S OWN LAW by not supporting people breaking said laws?

Its an attack on the entire concept of the deferential rights of being a law-abiding 'citizen' of a nation.

[LaughingOtter]

Exactly. What's the point of being a 'citizen' if the leaders dont really care and gives those benefits and protection to any foreign joe who wanders into the country illegally, even breaking the law?

I quite agree. Powhatan should have taken a much stronger stance and deported the Jamestown colonists back to England, by force if necessary, rather than extending benefits & protection to them. A classic example of failing to take homeland security seriously.

[Magnir]

I know that you are being sarcastic, LO, but that would have been better for the native tribes of the Americas.

[LaughingOtter]

I know that you are being sarcastic, LO, but that would have been better for the native tribes of the Americas.

Um, no, I'm quite serious.

[Nynelyves]

Hmmm....well we could focus on the fact in the here and the now it's Illegal. Laws are there for a reason.

[Magnir]

Sometimes the reason aren't good, though.

Not saying that's the case here, but allowing illegal immigrants to sue for unjust firings on the grounds that they shouldn't have had a job there in the first place according to federal law is rediculous.

It's also a terrible insult to legal immigrants. Who went through the proper hoops of fire and waiting and governmental red tape to earn citizens' rights just to see those same rights handed over to those who are circumventing the system.

LO: It is my firm belief that someone may be both sarcastic and serious with the same statement.

[LaughingOtter]

Yes, laws are there for a reason. Our laws are intended to bind and protect everyone, high and low, rich and poor. Equal justice under law. Even someone here illegally is entitled to due process.

These plaintiffs may not have any merit whatsoever to their cause of action, they may not have standing to sue, but it is one of the great virtues of our system that mandates that they be allowed to approach the bench and plead their case. They may win, they probably will lose, but if those high-sounding documents our nation is based on have any meaning, they must be heard.

This is not a failure of the system; it is a testament to the fundamental fairness of the system and the American people, and should be celebrated as such.

[Khosadan]

I quite agree. Powhatan should have taken a much stronger stance and deported the Jamestown colonists back to England, by force if necessary, rather than extending benefits & protection to them. A classic example of failing to take homeland security seriously.

You wanna compare stone-age/pre-industrial civilizations culture with the same standards as modern-age politics and mindsets? And think you're making a profound point? The Native American view on land ownership was also totally different to Westerners'. So I'm not sure what your attempted parallel is trying to say.

Yah, its great we're so fair that we let law-breakers take people to court to complain that businesses don't support them as they break the nation's laws. A court using the citizen's taxdollars. Where in our 'high sounding documents' does that divine right exist for anyone who wants it? If you're not a citizen of this country, you don't have the right to act like our nation's Constitution applies to you. Last I checked, a nation's constituion was for the CITIZENS OF THAT NATION only. Its kind of the entire point of being a citizen: you get to use all the goodies and protections that Constitution offers. Otherwise, those rights are not yours to enjoy or claim. Our 'system' is not for people who are not a member of this country. If you're illegal immigrant, you cant argue anything. You get deported. You wanna argue as an equal? Apply for citizenship.

Oh, yah, its just because they're racist that people have an issue with this. Even though.. last I checked, 'American' wasn't a race.

[Seranthor]

I quite agree. Powhatan should have taken a much stronger stance and deported the Jamestown colonists back to England, by force if necessary, rather than extending benefits & protection to them. A classic example of failing to take homeland security seriously.

I'll wade into the waters here, but, I'll ask you the following sir.

1. Was there a law regarding immigration that Powhatan was obligated to follow?

2. Are there currently now Federal laws regarding immigration illegally?

3. Since when does complying with the law make you liable to be sued?

4. Whats the point in complying with the laws regarding entry into this country if they are not going to be enforced?

5. Just because a law isn't being adequately enforced does that make it void? If so would that make armed robbery acceptable if it wasn't being adequately pursued?

Just a few stray questions I ask regarding this debate.

[LaughingOtter]

It is precisely because reasonable people may hold differing opinions that the Founders established the court system - so that arguments might be aired and facts weighed and measured. The law and justice are not the same, and the two may at times bow to one another as needed.

As for the question of law, I will refer you to Dred Scott - once the law of the land, since found lacking and overturned. The Constitution is a living document and should not be treated with such cynicism.

[Sigi]

If you're not a citizen of this country, you don't have the right to act like our nation's Constitution applies to you. Last I checked, a nation's constituion was for the CITIZENS OF THAT NATION only.

But you DO have the right to be used and abused for a few dollars a day for the good of the holy economy of those same citizens? I guess the dollars they provided with their labor exceeds the costs for the lawsuits by numerous times. And just because you're illegal doesn't mean you have no rights at all, you're still human.

[Tantalyr]

As for the question of law, I will refer you to Dred Scott - once the law of the land, since found lacking and overturned. The Constitution is a living document and should not be treated with such cynicism.

Actually, any competent constitutional scholar will tell you that in fact, the Dredd Scott case was rightly decided under the Constitution as it existed at the time (1856). That's why it took a constitutional amendment (the 14th) to overturn it, rather than either a federal statute or subsequent court ruling.