Oh say can you 'sing'... in Spanish!?!! (Warning: Rant ahead)

Sharpshooter005 05-01-2006 05:18 PM
quote:
And a final note: EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTRY IS A GOD-DAMNED IMMIGRANT EXCEPT FOR THE INDIANS BECAUSE THEY WERE HERE FIRST!!


Descended from immigrants (technicalities are fun)

Also Ted Kennedy just came out and said this may day (may 1st is may day, it always has been, it always will be) thing is probably going to do more damage than good...so...yeah when Ted Kennedy is going "whoa, whoa, slow down there" it..might mean somethings awry.
The Fallen Phoenix 05-01-2006 05:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
That and while everybody makes a big deal out of the White House getting torched, they seem to forget we burned down Canada's parliament buildings.


Is that so surprising? I jest, of course. Tongue

And...eh, I don't really ever trust a single word out of Ted Kennedy's mouth. Actually, I don't ever hear a single word out of Ted Kennedy's mouth because...I usually don't give a damn what Ted Kennedy has to say.

...just putting that out there.
David Ryder 05-01-2006 06:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by StevieV019
Dont worry about him, X Prime, he's still pissed the colonists knocked off the great British Empire back in the 1700's, and again in 1812 to sweep the best of 3...

Thus, he desires to find any way possible to show the unimportance of anything American because of his own internal struggle...


I was going to say something similar, but ya beat me to the punch. Bravo
evanASF27 05-01-2006 06:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
And...eh, I don't really ever trust a single word out of Ted Kennedy's mouth. Actually, I don't ever hear a single word out of Ted Kennedy's mouth because...I usually don't give a damn what Ted Kennedy has to say.

Ahh, but how many people didn't give a damn what Bush has been saying up until his "I believe people should sing it in English" quote (or something to that effect)?? Tongue I think there is still some common ground to be found if the occassion is right.
X Prime 05-01-2006 07:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
That and while everybody makes a big deal out of the White House getting torched, they seem to forget we burned down Canada's parliament buildings.


Is that so surprising? I jest, of course. Tongue


No. No you don't jest.

---

And I'd point out that as far as I can tell a far higher percentage of immigration back in the day was by technically legal channels.

NOBODY sane is arguing against immigration in and of itself, which certain individuals forget. It's 'illegal' immigration.

Let me say it again.

ILLEGAL.

As in, against THE LAW.

Which makes you, get this, a CRIMINAL.

Because, you know, by definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law.

Yes, stunning logic, but that's why I'm here. Somebody has to instill sense into people, might as well be me.
The Fallen Phoenix 05-01-2006 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
And I'd point out that as far as I can tell a far higher percentage of immigration back in the day was by technically legal channels.

NOBODY sane is arguing against immigration in and of itself, which certain individuals forget. It's 'illegal' immigration.

Let me say it again.

ILLEGAL.

As in, against THE LAW.

Which makes you, get this, a CRIMINAL.

Because, you know, by definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law.

Yes, stunning logic, but that's why I'm here. Somebody has to instill sense into people, might as well be me.


Question: I jaywalk at least once a day, which--as far as I know--is illegal in New York. You know, the definition of jaywalk being to cross a street illegally...

...so does that make me an illegal citizen?

Note: this post was mostly intended as an amusing way to show that just about everyone is a criminal because almost everyone breaks some law, no matter how inconsequential it may (or may not) be.
David Ryder 05-01-2006 08:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
That and while everybody makes a big deal out of the White House getting torched, they seem to forget we burned down Canada's parliament buildings.


Is that so surprising? I jest, of course. Tongue


No. No you don't jest.

---

And I'd point out that as far as I can tell a far higher percentage of immigration back in the day was by technically legal channels.

NOBODY sane is arguing against immigration in and of itself, which certain individuals forget. It's 'illegal' immigration.

Let me say it again.

ILLEGAL.

As in, against THE LAW.

Which makes you, get this, a CRIMINAL.

Because, you know, by definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law.

Yes, stunning logic, but that's why I'm here. Somebody has to instill sense into people, might as well be me.


X wins the thread. I must agree. It's also a shame that the protester's have this logic going. If you don't support their cause, your a racist and a bigot.
The Fallen Phoenix 05-01-2006 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Gaddes
X wins the thread. I must agree. It's also a shame that the protester's have this logic going. If you don't support their cause, your a racist and a bigot.


He hasn't won anything. Things aren't so black and white as legal and illegal; I will not deny that some illegal immigrants do not deserve some measure of sympathy, protection, asylum, or what have you, but there are others who do.

A good analog is underage prostitution. Illegal, not cool, we do not like that sort of stuff here in the United States. At the same time, underage prostitutes are not privileged a right of consent...

I think the problem becomes rather clear. How does one deal with them? Are they to be pitied, helped, punished?

Again, things aren't always so black and white. Often, reality is painted with shades of gray.
Sharpshooter005 05-01-2006 08:39 PM
I think the protests were idiotic, I think the anthem thing is just as stupid and probably does more of a disservice to their cause than it helps it.

At the same time...I'll admit...I don't TOTALLY know where I stand on this issue. Am I "pro" illegal immigration? Well I'm a square, I enjoy not having the law broken...so no...at the same time, do I hate them or something? No. Do I want to deport them? Not really, if for no other reason than it'd cost too much if nothing else.

Something has to be done...I honestly don't know exactly what it is. If I did then I'd probably have the entire Federal government kissing my feet right now....and boy would that be nice, guaranteed lifetime employment and everything.

I firmly believe we can have an immigration policy which works. If you want to come here, thats fine (just..don't piss me off, we have enough people who are citizens who already do that). At the same time no...I don't believe the concept of national borders needs to be completely abandoned. I simultaniously appreciate the boon to the economy (and obviously the human aspect of why people come here), but also the concept of sovreignty. There are no easy answers...there never really are if its a big issue.

I guess..I guess my entire policy on all immigration can be boiled down to this.

If you want to come here, and do your thing. Thats cool, sure I'd love if you did it legally..but..I suppose I can understand if you evade certain channels.

If you want to blow someone up, or maim a citizen, or generally stir up something along those lines...stay away. At least from me or anyone I know, but preferably just far away.

quote:
Unfortunately, our youth is deluded enough to fall to communism these days.


What,the soviet anthem is a good song. I hum it constantly...and I LOVE capitalism.
X Prime 05-01-2006 09:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
And I'd point out that as far as I can tell a far higher percentage of immigration back in the day was by technically legal channels.

NOBODY sane is arguing against immigration in and of itself, which certain individuals forget. It's 'illegal' immigration.

Let me say it again.

ILLEGAL.

As in, against THE LAW.

Which makes you, get this, a CRIMINAL.

Because, you know, by definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law.

Yes, stunning logic, but that's why I'm here. Somebody has to instill sense into people, might as well be me.


Question: I jaywalk at least once a day, which--as far as I know--is illegal in New York. You know, the definition of jaywalk being to cross a street illegally...

...so does that make me an illegal citizen?


That's a misdemeanor. Hardly comparable to what is a probable felony and has the nasty tendency to include forged documents if necessary...
Generalissimo D 05-01-2006 09:59 PM
This thread reeks of failing at life.

You segwayed from a rant about a rewriting of the National Anthem in another language to immigration.

And the Hendrix rendition is the definitive version. Everything else pales in comparison. And it will never be topped, for it is Good.

This remix will fall into the dusty passages of history and will be lost.

Besides, its not like they're trying to translate the USSR Anthem.
The Fallen Phoenix 05-01-2006 10:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by D-Boy
This thread reeks of failing at life.


Come again?

...and no, my next line isn't "let the girl in your heart tumble free!"

quote:
Originally posted by D-Boy
You segwayed from a rant about a rewriting of the National Anthem in another language to immigration.


The two topics are closely related.

quote:
Originally posted by D-Boy
Besides, its not like they're trying to translate the USSR Anthem.


That's rather unfortunate, too. Nothing like a good dose of Communism to brighten your day.
Dude Love 05-01-2006 10:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by X Prime
quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
Question: I jaywalk at least once a day, which--as far as I know--is illegal in New York. You know, the definition of jaywalk being to cross a street illegally...

...so does that make me an illegal citizen?


That's a misdemeanor. Hardly comparable to what is a probable felony and has the nasty tendency to include forged documents if necessary...


I don't think it counts as a felony or a misdemeanor, since everything having to do with immigration is independent of the normal legal system (with Immigration Services Trials and deportation). The real difference, however, is that an illegal immigrant's presence in this country is contingent upon he or she breaking the law, whereas FP's presence in the USA is not dependent upon his jaywalking.

---

FP claims, essentially, that there should be compassion and understanding native to the immigration system, since there are lots of extenuating circumstances. And, while that is always great, when it comes to the law the point is to minimize the grey area. While the law is designed to add grey area in sentencing and there is dismissal of cases based on reasonable doubt, to propose that we treat this situation with such understanding is to propose degradation of society's laws. It's the same logic for Civil Disobedience: while you're trying to accomplish something greater, you cannot be immune to society's laws, and in the end have to work through legal channels.

---

I do believe that laws governing underage prostitution also advocate assistance to everyone caught in that situation. The "compassion" is written into the law, and the people who get really punished are the people who solicit child prostitutes. I'm not so sure on all this though, as I've never read the laws on this.
X Prime 05-01-2006 10:04 PM
Unfortunately, our youth is deluded enough to fall to communism these days.

There's the ONE good thing about the USSR's downfall... if it was still around we'd have more defectors than mosquitoes.
The Fallen Phoenix 05-01-2006 10:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dude Love
I don't think it counts as a felony or a misdemeanor, since everything having to do with immigration is independent of the normal legal system (with Immigration Services Trials and deportation). The real difference, however, is that an illegal immigrant's presence in this country is contingent upon he or she breaking the law, whereas FP's presence in the USA is not dependent upon his jaywalking.


That was more a joke, to further a single point: everyone who breaks the law is a criminal under blanket logic.

---
quote:
Originally posted by Dude Love
FP claims, essentially, that there should be compassion and understanding native to the immigration system, since there are lots of extenuating circumstances. And, while that is always great, when it comes to the law the point is to minimize the grey area. While the law is designed to add grey area in sentencing and there is dismissal of cases based on reasonable doubt, to propose that we treat this situation with such understanding is to propose degradation of society's laws. It's the same logic for Civil Disobedience: while you're trying to accomplish something greater, you cannot be immune to society's laws, and in the end have to work through legal channels.


That is not...entirely accurate. I do not pretend that there cannot be any punishment whatsoever, even for the extenuating circumstances. This is more an appeal to those who would be so quick to judge all lawbreakers (in this particular case, illegal immigrants) as being bad or wrong--that is not always necessarily the case. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.

At the same time, I take a very Thomist approach to this sort of thing--even those laws that one disagrees with (or questions) should be followed, in order to afford the law its proper reverence. Even under this framework, however, Civil Disobedience would have a purpose: it is effective because one shows reverence for laws by accepting the punishment for the disobedience.

So...no, compassion and understanding does not lead to the degregation of law's authority. Not inherently, at least.

---
quote:
Originally posted by Dude Love
I do believe that laws governing underage prostitution also advocate assistance to everyone caught in that situation. The "compassion" is written into the law, and the people who get really punished are the people who solicit child prostitutes. I'm not so sure on all this though, as I've never read the laws on this.


Again, not entirely true. Underage prostitutes can be subject to punishment under the law, but compassion also plays a part. Which goes to show that the two are not incompatible and can co-exist under an effective legal framework.
evanASF27 05-02-2006 12:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
quote:
Originally posted by D-Boy
You segwayed from a rant about a rewriting of the National Anthem in another language to immigration.


The two topics are closely related.

Yah but there's a reason this is posted in "Amadeus Pub & Restaurant". So please don't sway too far, FP, as much as I know you want to Tongue
The Fallen Phoenix 05-02-2006 12:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Zenigata-Da-Vida
Yah but there's a reason this is posted in "Amadeus Pub & Restaurant". So please don't sway too far, FP, as much as I know you want to Tongue


Forgive me for stirring the intellectual flavor in this thread more than you intended me to, evan. Tongue The truth of the matter is, there is frequently overlap in threads, even cross-forum: such things cannot be helped. In this case, the thread serves multiple purposes: one can discuss the music (hence why it is in Amadeus); and one can also discuss the underlying issues behind the music.

A great analog would be discussing a book in the Library, and then drifting onto the deeper issues behind a book. Say, for example, I began a topic on Andrew Sullivan's Virtually Normal: it would not be inapporpriate to segue into a general discussion on homosexuality (which the book addresses and, indeed, is focused on), although homosexualiy has no inherent link to literature.

Likewise, while immigration may have no inherent link to music, there seems to me an obvious link between the two in this very thread, so I daresay the discussion in this thread--beyond being interesting--is also rather appropriate.

Of course, you're always free to disagree with me. That's why discussions take place, after all. They are quite boring when everyone conforms to consent.
evanASF27 05-02-2006 12:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
Forgive me for stirring the intellectual flavor in this thread more than you intended me to, evan. Tongue The truth of the matter is, there is frequently overlap in threads, even cross-forum: such things cannot be helped. In this case, the thread serves multiple purposes: one can discuss the music (hence why it is in Amadeus); and one can also discuss the underlying issues behind the music.

[...] Likewise, while immigration may have no inherent link to music, there seems to me an obvious link between the two in this very thread, so I daresay the discussion in this thread--beyond being interesting--is also rather appropriate.

There's, in my eyes, a slight difference between a closely related subtopic, and seemingly changing a majority of the discussion (unintentionally, of course) from the music to immigration. I've barely heard peoples opinions on the song and how the feel about people supporting it as the "Latino National Anthem", yet heard a lot about theories and rhetoric concerning border control. If one can extrapolate j-walking into being an "illegal citizen" (...what? O.o), yet only give wandering and almost "airy" comments about a song whose lyrics were written during a 'foolish war' (which I don't personally think was 'foolish' in the slightest) ...I do believe that 'one' is holding back for some reason or another.

What I implore of you folks to do, is to give your opinions without beating around the bush, and to at least for sake of discussion give some reason behind why you feel "For" or "Against" that song. Include immigration in your explainations if you wish, but I think the discussion benefits more from the opinions of the song than of another trivial immigration laws debate.


That's all I really have to say on that matter...
Sharpshooter005 05-02-2006 04:02 PM
quote:
I think the discussion benefits more from the opinions of the song than of another trivial immigration laws debate.


Er...this variant of the song was specifically written/played up in the media because of the ongoing debate over immigration law. I'm not totally sure how you could fully divorce one from the other.
Xel 05-02-2006 06:34 PM
You all know that our national anthem was written to the tune of a British drinking song, right?

Just a fun fact, I suppose. Frankly, I don't have the inclination or the drive to solidly connect that to the topic at hand, so I'll leave that to someone else, if anyone. :3