|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 24, 2009 15:31:18 GMT -5
Immigrants come to try and better their lives As far as I am concerned, Holly Weiss ("Disagreement Is Not Over Immigrants Who Came Legally," Letters to the Editor, News Transcript, June 10, 2009) does not get or understand what I am saying about the whole immigration situation. True, there are a lot of people that have come here with out the proper documentation. Yes, they came here "illegally." My whole argument is that when people face a situation where they feel they can better themselves, they will take that opportunity and move to an area where they can have employment, have better housing and in general make a better life for themselves and their family. Most of the "illegals" face desperate situations in their home countries and cannot wait years to come here legally. I am not saying what they did is right in the eyes of the law. It isn't. I am saying that what they did takes a lot of courage to come to a country where they are mistreated, taken advantage of and looked down on because they are poor and different. The law, in a lot of cases, is wrong. Segregation was the law, so was slavery. Did I break the law by protesting against segregation, by sitting at a lunch counter in South Carolina and having hot coffee poured on my head, spat on and called every name in the book? Did I break the law? Yes, I did, and I would gladly do it again. Did your descendants come here legally? They probably did as you state, but what would they have done if they were denied legal entry and they had the opportunity to come here without papers? Ask yourself that question. Remember, it is normal for people to move from place to place in order to better themselves. This has been going on from the beginning of history. Thomas Baldwin Freehold Borough newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0624/letters/024.html
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 24, 2009 17:00:32 GMT -5
I think it is a good letter too. It was a good response, and countered the emotions of the prior letter.
However, I don't agree with the premise that there are desparate situations that forced the Freehold immigrant population to immigrate. Their choice was mostly for economic opportunity - which is not the same as political or religious persecution. If economic conditions are fair game to come through the back door, then all of the Third World can immigrant. Or for that matter, any European that gets laid off from their bank job should be able to immigrate as well.
I do agree with Mr. Baldwin about civil disobedience - Mr. Baldwin was morally right to break the laws he mentions in his letter - and to his credit, he had courage and strength to do so. But Mr. Baldwin must also realize that anyone that breaks a law (whether it be a good or bad law) must face the consequences of his or her actions. Therefore, a person that comes here illegally must face the consquences that the law mandates for that class of criminal - whether it is deportation, jail, fines, etc. As they say, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Also, if you commit the crime of illegally entering this country, do not expect welcome arms from the majority of American. While I can empathize with your economic need to feel the need to come here, and I can have a great amount of symnpathy for anyone struggling to feed their family, do not expect that Americans will like the fact that our laws force us to bend over backwards for you. They can expect anger and resentment as shown in the letters to the press.
Lastly, I think Mr. Baldwin confuses history. When my ancestors came here they didn't need papers. In fact, there were no papers. You got on a boat and came over. The immigrant came through the front door, and many risked being turned back. You can't compare the open door policy of the late 1800s with today. There were domestic political and economic factors behind PERMITTING this immigrants. Were some of our ancestors a part of that? Yes, but we cannot look back to then and apply the same standards today.
That being said, I certainly understand Mr. Baldwin's argument. I do not agree with him, and I think his argument is more of an emotional argument than a legal, logical or historical argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 24, 2009 17:06:27 GMT -5
I think it is a good letter too. It was a good response, and countered the emotions of the prior letter. However, I don't agree with the premise that there are desparate situations that forced the Freehold immigrant population to immigrate. Their choice was mostly for economic opportunity - which is not the same as political or religious persecution. If economic conditions are fair game to come through the back door, then all of the Third World can immigrant. Or for that matter, any European that gets laid off from their bank job should be able to immigrate as well. I do agree with Mr. Baldwin about civil disobedience - Mr. Baldwin was morally right to break the laws he mentions in his letter - and to his credit, he had courage and strength to do so. But Mr. Baldwin must also realize that anyone that breaks a law (whether it be a good or bad law) must face the consequences of his or her actions. Therefore, a person that comes here illegally must face the consquences that the law mandates for that class of criminal - whether it is deportation, jail, fines, etc. As they say, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Also, if you commit the crime of illegally entering this country, do not expect welcome arms from the majority of American. While I can empathize with your economic need to feel the need to come here, and I can have a great amount of symnpathy for anyone struggling to feed their family, do not expect that Americans will like the fact that our laws force us to bend over backwards for you. They can expect anger and resentment as shown in the letters to the press. Lastly, I think Mr. Baldwin confuses history. When my ancestors came here they didn't need papers. In fact, there were no papers. You got on a boat and came over. The immigrant came through the front door, and many risked being turned back. You can't compare the open door policy of the late 1800s with today. There were domestic political and economic factors behind PERMITTING this immigrants. Were some of our ancestors a part of that? Yes, but we cannot look back to then and apply the same standards today. That being said, I certainly understand Mr. Baldwin's argument. I do not agree with him, and I think his argument is more of an emotional argument than a legal, logical or historical argument. Thank you, I was trying to find a tactful way to express disagreement with Lisa and Tom. Emotion and compassion alone cannot dicate our immigration policies. There are four billion people who would be better off here. How many do we let in? Disagreements aside, I hope Tom will eventually post on this site. He is a concerned resident of this town and belongs here on the FV. |
|
|
|
Post by irisheyes on Jun 25, 2009 16:20:54 GMT -5
Well, I don't agree with him at all. Nor does anyone I know. It all comes down to if you cannot get what you want legally, break the law to get it. Isn't that what they are teaching their children? We all know, "Children learn what they live." We all have to follow the same laws or you have anarchy. Aside from that, this town is too small to support them all.
Regardless of what he thinks, my family would not have broken the law to be here if they could come legally when they did. The first thing they did was they learned English,they didn't expect the people around them to speak their language. As my grandmother said, they would have gone back to the old country before they took "assistance" from anyone.
Any sort of amnesty is a slap in the face to people who've waited years for citizenship, learning the language, working with green cards in the process, paying their fair share of taxes.
I'm new here,please don't label me racist. I am not. I don't care what the race is, it is all wrong when you thumb your nose at the legal system in the country you cheated to live here.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jun 30, 2009 16:47:54 GMT -5
Compelling arguments don't always have to be devoid of true human emotion. In fact, sometimes, these make the arguments more thought-provoking. Mr. Baldwin's letter was lucid, and he did not attack anyone and accuse them of racism. In that respect, it was one of his better letters. In addition, pouring out his feelings about standing up to intolerance wrapped him in a glow of respectability. In addition, he rightfully identified that many illegal immigrants come here to better themselves, and are in fact exploited. After that -- when one looks at his letter with an analytical eye -- one finds a complete lack of logic. Indeed, ripped to its core, Mr. Baldwin is comparing the immigration laws of this country to segregation and racial intolerance -- suggestions that should offend those who suffered those indignities. Additionally, Mr. Baldwin is suggesting a public policy whereby laws are ignored -- the ones he does not like. In addition, he is essentially advocating that immigration laws -- such as our unjust laws that exploit illegal aliens and are equivalent to segregation, should be eliminated. Thus, what Mr. Baldwin really suggests here is that we have open borders and reward those who break the law he does not like. As for his writing -- don't confuse emotion with logic. I applaud Mr. Baldwin for fighting segregation and his personal courage to stand in the face of such hate. However, his experiences with Constitutionally infirmed laws bear no relation to the right, proper, just, and lenient immigration laws we have that are in place for the protection of all. The injustice here is that they are ignored and unenforced. The injustice here is that some people actually do play by the rules -- and they wait years for entry because we are a country over-run by line jumpers and illegals who have stolen the dream of those who wait. Reality is, of course, that we can't have open Borders. If we opened US Borders to all who wished a better life, we would have 3 billion or more people in our Country -- and few would have a great life. That is why we regulate immigration -- while lawfully allowing over 500,000 new immigrants into the country legally each year. Mr. Baldwin's letter may make one feel a bit better about Mr. Baldwin as a personal pioneer for the poor -- but his logic fails by every measure. In addition, he suggests outrageous comparisons, and essentially calls for the elimination of US immigration law. All of that makes his letter, in my view, completely unpersuasive in every way. For that reason, I hope he continues to write and be published on the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2009 17:57:16 GMT -5
I'm not confusing anything. I know the difference between logic and emotion. Obviously, Tom's letter is really all about opinion, his, and those of all who read it. I don't know if I would use the word emotion when discussing illegal immigration. Compassion is what comes to my mind. Regardless of one beliefs, I hope we can all have compassion for the less fortunate which includes the other four billion who would love to come to this country. Unfortunately, logic dictates that we cannot allow that and still have a great country. One of the other points, immigration policy is not based on our compassion for others, but based on what is good for our country. At this point, nobody in their right mind can say that illegal immigration has been good for Freehold, no matter how humane we try to be about it. added Lisa, I do not put down yours and Toms compassion. Sometimes those of us who opine via logic need to be reminded of that to keep us in check. Your views help bring more to the table, even though I may disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jun 30, 2009 17:57:42 GMT -5
I'm not confusing anything. I know the difference between logic and emotion. Obviously, Tom's letter is really all about opinion, his, and those of all who read it. And what do you think of his opinion that immigration laws should be abolished, law breakers rewarded, lawful immigrants punished and ignored, and his comparison of immigration law to Unconstitutional racist segregation? Because -- to be clear -- that is his opinion. I disagree with those opinions as a matter of emotion, logic, reason, law, and obviously public policy. However -- I am totally cool with him standing up against racism back in the day -- not that me loving that in any way makes me respect his opinions as stated. You just have a crush on him. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2009 18:06:21 GMT -5
I'm not confusing anything. I know the difference between logic and emotion. Obviously, Tom's letter is really all about opinion, his, and those of all who read it. And what do you think of his opinion that immigration laws should be abolished, law breakers rewarded, lawful immigrants punished and ignored, and his comparison of immigration law to Unconstitutional racist segregation? Because -- to be clear -- that is his opinion. I disagree with those opinions as a matter of emotion, logic, reason, law, and obviously public policy. However -- I am totally cool with him standing up against racism back in the day -- not that me loving that in any way makes me respect his opinions as stated. You just have a crush on him. :-) I cannot equate the racist policies of the past to illegal immigration. I do not view illegal immigration as a race based issue and think that those who do are foolish and deflecting from the real issues. |
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jul 1, 2009 14:21:40 GMT -5
Freehold Dudes and Dudettes:
Mr. Baldwin is a man of principle. I have seen him on two occasions and both times he spoke with dignity about the need for protecting the human rights of the people living in the borough.
Disagree with him all you want -- he is the conscience of Freehold Borough.
Michael "Chupacabra" Wilson is the villain in this ongoing Freehold Borough soap opera and Tom Baldwin is the handsome leading man attempting to bring justice to this town troubled by evildoers.
I wish they would duel in the middle of Main Street and settle this once and for all.
Casually a Baldwin Fan
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 1, 2009 14:26:09 GMT -5
Casual, you can do better than using silly names like chupacabra.
Abrazos, Novillero.
|
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jul 1, 2009 14:33:20 GMT -5
I am not as talented as you Novillero -- chupacabra is the best I can do today. Perdoname.
I plan on going back to Spain with maybe a side trip to Morocco.
Please don't hurt me again by suggesting I have never been to Spain or Portugal.
Casually Grasping for Creativity
|
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jul 1, 2009 14:35:09 GMT -5
I could never be as creative as you Lisa dudette nor nearly as beautiful.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 1, 2009 14:40:47 GMT -5
I am not as talented as you Novillero -- chupacabra is the best I can do today. Perdoname. I plan on going back to Spain with maybe a side trip to Morocco. Please don't hurt me again by suggesting I have never been to Spain or Portugal. Casually Grasping for Creativity Sorry, the whole act gets a little tiring. |
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jul 1, 2009 14:45:20 GMT -5
You on the other hand Novillero remain refreshing and uplifting and for this Casual Thanks you.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 1, 2009 14:49:46 GMT -5
abrazos? meaning? thanks! Hugs (in a manly way, of course). But as you can tell, you try to reach out to someone, try to be nice, and this is how they react. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 7, 2009 15:44:39 GMT -5
Actually, Richard, I can say I think you're quite handsome and crushworthy -- a man with a strong intellect is quite a plus for me. I think Tom's a decent human being. You know me and my liberal empathy by now! That's so nice -- and you should see me now -- 97 pounds thiner in 53 weeks. Someone just told I look like John Stamos. |
|
