Illegal immigrants release ‘Bill of Rights’ - Demand citizenship, birth certificates, medical care

Posted by ShrugInArgentina 9 years, 5 months ago to News
103 comments | Share | Flag

"An immigrant-rights group proposed a “Bill of Rights” for illegal immigrants Thursday, demanding that Americans recognize there are millions already in the country who deserve health care, in-state tuition rates for college and a guarantee of citizenship in the long term."



All Comments

  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's certainly one piece, yes. Eliminate SS, Medicare, Obamacare, and all these other Federal government handouts as the first piece. The second piece is to secure the borders and make sure that the people coming in are the people we want. The third is to get rid of the people we don't want - especially those with criminal backgrounds.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, but those immigrants were looking to change their lives. They wanted to abandon their old lives and old philosophies to take part in the culture of America. They weren't coming here to mooch off us because in those times, there were no public handouts for immigrants. Indeed, many immigrants endured terrible working conditions and extreme poverty when they came to the United States and still viewed it as an opportunity for their children to have what they couldn't have had they stayed.

    The problem with today's immigrants is that the vast majority are illegal or asylum seekers. To jbrenner's point, they don't care one whit about becoming Americans!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    jim; What the individual can do and should do, is to simply learn to stand up and say NO in his life to any activity that infringes in any way on his or anyone's liberty--and that applies to all of this nonsense of political theatre and voting for the least worst that says a little bit of what we would like to here.

    As to not intervening, you refuse to ever give the sanction of the victim and freely choose to associate with those that share your values. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, I am talking about much earlier civilizations before it was called our by modern-day terms of socialism and communism. I am talking about the Roman Empire, the Egyptian civilizations, all of the ancient civilizations. They all fell due to the same things. Nothing new is happening here. History repeats itself. We need to figure out a way to stop the repetition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Basically started in mid to late 1700's. First wave were the French, that spread and along comes Marx and Engels. I'm leaving out a few but but the refinement was Lenin. The Socialists spread their credo then split into two groups. International (Communists) and National (Italian Fascists and German Nazi's or National socialist workers party. All socialist, all totalitarian and all fascist using it as a meaning ...complete control of everything. People like Mussolini and Lenin met regularly when Il Duce was the head of the Italian socialist party....It came to the us through the university system and was introduced in yet another form and put into practice by Woodrow Wilson. A hundred years later there is still no real difference they are joined at the hip twndlngs. Thus no difference between Eva, Evita and Hillary and Madonna had no problem playing the part.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi MA. I do not blame Nazi's as they did not invent it. I think, if history serves me, just about every great civilization since the world began has fallen to moochers and looters and dictators.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    can you provide some evidence for that statement? I do not doubt you, but I do not recall that he said that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ms. Dalmia, in that article, failed to point out that the reason why conservatives have not embraced Reagan's amnesty is that Reagan himself said it was his biggest mistake. Intelligent people learn from others' mistakes, as have the conservatives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    from the article: "But today we live in a world where a small band of immigration restrictionists have acquired an air of legitimacy by loudly repeating their views. They have created a false moral equivalence between serious criminals and petty visa violators. They wield words such as “illegal” and “law breaker” like assault weapons. They deploy an arsenal of tropes (such as “What part of illegal don’t you understand?”) to quash rational immigration reform. And they have turned “amnesty,” which Ronald Reagan proudly embraced, into a four-letter word that conservative presidential contenders shun. (Congratulations, Rush Limbaugh.)"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    On the other hand all of those are currently laws in effect but ineffectual. Like most of the two million or so laws they are only used when targeting someone specific. Usually a citizen.

    Don't blame the Nazi's it wasn't their decision to turn USA into USSA and start a Directorate of Internal State Security. That was a choice of the Government Party.

    Now go vote for them again. Either one of their candidates for President will do the Rino version or the Dino version.

    It's all left wing fascist socialism
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    https://reason.com/archives/2012/02/1...

    By committing perjury to obtain entry to the land she proclaimed as the only moral country in history, she lost credibility on the immigration issue and made a mockery of not just American immigration law, but all American laws and values. She did something that was counter to everything else that she claimed both she and America stood for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My papers are quite well in order, thank you. They show up as a $ and a shopping cart next to my name. ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Admittedly, there is pragmatism embedded in the question I asked. My pragmatist comment was "good" in that it remains a valid, uncontradicted point.

    Nonetheless, your response regarding liberty is a correct one, as is your conclusion. Consequently, both of us have chosen to turn away and walk on. There is no point in further trying to change the system.

    As an individual, I am unable to get rid of the evil of progressive socialism nor of any other ill in society, and if I were able to do so, Objectivism would correctly tell me that I should not intervene because it is none of my business.

    The conservative approach is incorrect. While the Objectivist stance on this issue is correct, any liberty we have will only because we are surviving in isolation, rather than thriving. Very sad. In preserving our own liberty, we are getting a hollow victory indeed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "May I see your papers before you comment in the future? Just looking for moochers on this site."

    Irrational? Yes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed, zen. I find it hard to frame such an issue with regards to where personal freedom can be the common rule. There is so much to interfer with it at this point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    jim; All I can answer is that's a good pragmatist answer, but if one values individual liberty at all, he must consider that one is either free or not free--like being pregnant or not pregnant, You can't be sorta pregnant as one can't be sorta free. And if you value your own liberty, you can only secure that liberty by recognizing the same for any other individual.

    If you really don't want the evil of illegal immigrants or wet backs or whatever else you think of them as, coming here and taking advantage of the socialism--get rid of the evil of progressive socialism and socialists. Don't fall for the conservative answer of eliminating just a little bit of individual liberty, just till they can figure out how to eliminate the socialism they secretly support. Tomorrow they'll need just a little more of everyone's liberty for just a little bit longer.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo