News Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[Evo]

OK, how about we trade 3 relocated Katrina victims living off the state of Texas for one hardworking illegal Mexican drug runner? I think there's a better chance of the drug runner helping the economy. I'm just saying.

*ducks*

I'm not talking about people down on their luck, I'm talking about people that are allergic to supporting themselves.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I'm not talking about people down on their luck, I'm talking about people that are allergic to supporting themselves.

So was I.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/21/nation/na-evac21

 

[Evo]

So was I.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/21/nation/na-evac21

Sounds like a forced "repatriation" program may be in order. Louisiana needs to pony up. And who doesn't understand that most of that land would not have existed under natural circumstances?

But I'm going off topic.

 

[leroyjenkens]

But the child hasn't done anything illegal. Why should it be punished?

If a person throws a baby at me, that's assault. The baby didn't do anything illegal, but if I have to defend myself from it hitting me, I will.

 

[cristo]

If a person throws a baby at me, that's assault. The baby didn't do anything illegal, but if I have to defend myself from it hitting me, I will.

That's a very well thought out and relevant comment. Thank you.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's a very well thought out and relevant comment. Thank you.

:roflcopters:

 

[D H]

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/21/nation/na-evac21

That article was written just a year after Katrina. Now that people have had a chance to reexamine things it appears that the post-Katrina crime wave was a tad overhyped. One real problem with those Katrina evacuees is that most of their kids went to Louisiana public schools. That problem is also more or less non-existent now. Those Katrina kids now doing quite well in Texas schools.

But ... once a New Orleanian, always a New Orleanian -- at least that is how New Orleans' then mayor Ray Nagin wanted the Census Bureau to count those Katrina evacuees even though Katrina happened almost five years ago.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6868718.html
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2010/04/hurricane_katrina_evacuees_exc.html
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Nagin-Houstons-Katrina-evacuees-as-New-Orleans-residents-in-Census-83665532.html

 

[mheslep]

I guess my main point of that post you quote is twofold. Firstly, the American dream as seen from the outside is somewhat hypocritical, since while people are encouraged to work and better themselves, they are not really given the chance to.

In what sense? Legal immigrants still arrive at the rate of http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=730" . I expect that figure would be much higher but for the flux of illegal immigrants, especially from Mexico. Annecdotally, I have friends that have migrated here from the UK and Russia that became US citizens.

But secondly, I was merely trying to make the point that your typical Mexican will have no chance of legally getting into the US.

Clearly there is some legal immigration now, there are many legal latin american immigrants, and I again I expect there would be more if the border was controlled.

 

[Gokul43201]

English is only the de facto official language of the UK (much like it is in the US).

Thanks for the correction. I was using a poor source (or, perhaps, I was using it poorly): http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookHomeInternal/139560/

The UK has started to open bilingual schools (e.g. there are some French-English schools in London).

I mentioned biligual schools in the sense of helping immigrants integrate into society. Are the French, the biggest immigrant community in the UK? I thought the biggest communities were from the Indian subcontinent, Africa, and more recently, Eastern Europe.

Yes, but these are British people who speak another language as their first language (and, in fact, have that language as their official language-- welsh is the official language of wales).

I'm not criticizing the existence of the schools - just pointing out that they are not relevant to immigrant populations.

Not automatic, but a child born here illegally becomes a citizen on his 10th birthday.

Is the citizenship on the 10th birthday automatic? Does the child have to be a resident in the UK for that period? Is there an application process, and what does it involve? If you have a reference for this, that would be nice.

I haven't read the bill that is the basis of this thread, so do not know if it too provides some later-in-life procedure for children born here to gain citizenship differently from a random foreigner.

I really don't think you can draw a parallel between the UK and the US, since we are two very different countries. European countries have complex immigration situations that do not exist in the US (for example, a billion people have the right to come and live in the UK simply because they are European).

I agree, and I'm not trying to draw a parallel between the UK and the US. I am merely trying to locate the basis for the claims that the US is particularly unfair in its immigration policy. And I can't see a better way than to compare with the immigration policies of other countries.

 

[edward]

I agree with everything you said except for the physical barrier part. You remeber the Berlin Wall? Great wall of China? The Maginot Line? There are probably others I don't know about. I think if people had more incentive to stay in Mexico, it would be much more effective than any wall

No wall was ever intended. There are places near population centers, California and Texas, in particular, where there are 20 foot high metal fences. It didn't take long for the illegals to come up with 24 foot ladders.

Most of the border only has an ordinary wire fence. A number of off road areas where vehicles carrying drugs cross frequently have had spaced metal barriers installed. It didn't take long for them to overcome the barriers.

http://img.skitch.com/20090202-k7nb26p11pnfxeq8ph1mqkhy8.jpg

This one was still under construction:

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/albums/070621ramps/Image00068.jpg

There is nothing inhumane about the border fence.

Having an incentive to stay in Mexico would be wonderful. The USA has given Mexico millions of dollars to help them provide jobs for their people. The money quickly disappears into the hands of bureaucrats.

This is a much more complicated situation that many people seem to realize. Ten years ago I was all for immigration from Mexico. After seeing what has happened I have had to change my mind.

We (Arizonans) can not afford to give them free medical care and to educate non English speaking children. The past several years we have had an increasing number of illegals coming from all over Central America.

 

[cristo]

Thanks for the correction. I was using a poor source (or, perhaps, I was using it poorly): http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookHomeInternal/139560/

I think there's a lot of misinformation about this on the net!

I mentioned biligual schools in the sense of helping immigrants integrate into society. Are the French, the biggest immigrant community in the UK? I thought the biggest communities were from the Indian subcontinent, Africa, and more recently, Eastern Europe.

No, the French are no the biggest immigrant community, I just know that those schools exist. I'm sure there are many other bilingual schools, but can't find anything to cite on them!

Is the citizenship on the 10th birthday automatic? Does the child have to be a resident in the UK for that period? Is there an application process, and what does it involve? If you have a reference for this, that would be nice.

It's on application if the child has been resident in the UK for the first 10 years (with the exception of at most 90 days per year). [see section 1(4) of 1981 nationality law ]

I agree, and I'm not trying to draw a parallel between the UK and the US. I am merely trying to locate the basis for the claims that the US is particularly unfair in its immigration policy. And I can't see a better way than to compare with the immigration policies of other countries.

The problem is that the parallel isn't really there. For example, if you count the French, say, or Eastern Europeans as immigrants, then the UK is far fairer on these people than, say, the US. But this is not because UK immigration law is lax, but rather that EU law dictates that EU residents should be treated as those of the home EU country.

 

[SixNein]

Cyrus, I agree with everything you said except for the physical barrier part. You remeber the Berlin Wall? Great wall of China? The Maginot Line? There are probably others I don't know about. I think if people had more incentive to stay in Mexico, it would be much more effective than any wall.

I agree with you. The Mexican government is currently fighting for its life. The drug cartels are currently trying very hard to supplant it. So Americans should not be surprised to see people trying to illegally immigrate. If the people were going somewhere else, the United States may even call them refugees.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico

I live in China. While there is a general sense of fascination with western culture and the United States in particular here, there is a lot of ill sentiment in regards to our foreign policy. In my job I meet people from all over the world. The general sentiment is the same: the individual American might be alright, but our government is not. It's harder when I might people who are not this open minded...

In some ways, the Chinese fascination with America worries me. In particular, I wonder if there is enough resources for the Chinese to live as Americans have lived in the past, and I wonder if china is planning on pursing imperialistic policies. I've noticed that china has become more assertive with its military in recent years.

People ask me if I know that the US is referred to as "The World Police." (The assumption is, I don't know bad stuff about my own country.) Believe it or not, they don't mean "police" in a good way. They mean we stick our noses where they don't belong. We deal unfairly with weaker nations so we'll come out on top. We close our borders to the countries whose population is poor or not predominantly white. (I'm talking perception. Whether or not it's true, is a whole other discussion.)

I think it would be fair to call America moderately imperialistic.

Considering the intention of the amendment, I'll concede that it's probably a stretch to extend it to illegal immigrants. I don't have any objection to being true to the spirit of the constitution. What bothers me here is the way people are trying to go about this.

I think such an amendment is unnecessary.

Immigrants, especially illegal ones, always become a target when economic trouble is around. They are the classic scapegoat. "Those immigrants took my job/scholarship/place in line/etc." "I'm sick of paying for those immigrants to (insert just about anything here).

The laser focus on immigration has more to do with the hard up economy than anything else I think. In addition, I believe America is undergoing some major transformations that frighten a lot of people.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB121867492705539109.html

The real question is: Why are they coming to the US illegally? Until we address this problem in a thoughtful, non-reactionary, long term perspective way, the problem will persist. No amount of walls or changes to who becomes a citizen are going to solve the problem permanently.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

I realize I'm late to this, but I just cannot see how this can be believied:

But the child hasn't done anything illegal. Why should it be punished?

Cristo, if I steal a car and give it to my kid, then the government takes that car away from my kid, would you call that punishment for the kid? It is rediculous to call removal of an illegally obtained benefit a punishment.

Taking something away that is not rightfully earned is not punishment, it is justice!.

The cause is this:

... by not allowing the child citizenship, you are denying the child things like healthcare or education (both of which I appreciate some of you do not class as human rights).

Rights are protections, not financial gifts - healthcare has no basis for being called a "right" and does not fit with the concept of rights. By taking things that have no logical/philosophical/theoretical basis as rights and granting them the status of rights, you create the above incongruity. It is fine that you believe that the government should be made to provide such things, but they are not rights, they are simply government services like roads and museums.

It is easy to show practical failings resulting from calling things like healthcare rights and the situation the US is now in is an obvious example. Other countries have had worse immigration situations, and there is no basis for forcing one country to provide such a wide range of care to a huge influx of unplanned immigrants. It doesn't cost the government anything to allow real rights, though it may cost a little to actively protect them when infringements are found. But things like social security and healthcare are a huge financial burden and if the number of immigrants is big enough, it becomes physically impossible to actually provide the services. Real rights - like freedom of speech - don't such continuous financial upkeep.

I really don't think you can draw a parallel between the UK and the US, since we are two very different countries. European countries have complex immigration situations that do not exist in the US (for example, a billion people have the right to come and live in the UK simply because they are European).

Isn't that exactly the problem the US has and how is it a problem for the UK? If those billion people suddenly decided that the healthcare in the UK was better and streamed across the English channel, the UK could not support them. But they don't do that because Europe is relatively homogenous - all countries are on nearly the same level - and there is no need for a French person to go to the UK to get better free services. Mexicans come to the US precisely because we are not on the same level. With rare exceptions (ie, Yugoslavian refugees), Europe doesn't have this problem. If it did, it would have to deal with it to avoid the drag on its economies.

 

[cristo]

Cristo, if I steal a car and give it to my kid, then the government takes that car away from my kid, would you call that punishment for the kid? It is rediculous to call removal of an illegally obtained benefit a punishment.

Of course not, but that child does not need a car. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The cause is this: Rights are protections, not financial gifts - healthcare has no basis for being called a "right" and does not fit with the concept of rights.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would appear to state otherwise.

 

[Cyrus]

LOL, the declaration of human toilet paper, as I call it. It's great for wiping one's backside.

It's got some good stuff mixed in with a lot of social welfare garbage.

 

[cristo]

LOL, the declaration of human toilet paper, as I call it. It's great for wiping one's backside.

Why does that not surprise me.

 

[Cyrus]

Why does that not surprise me.

Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I don't feel like working cristo, you pay taxes so I can enjoy my right to security during my unemployment. Really, this isn't a right, this is a welfare program. This united declaration reads like a whose-who of social welfare handouts. Now, there is nothing wrong with instituting these things in policy, but it is not ok to call these things 'rights.'

 

[cristo]

I don't feel like working cristo, you pay taxes so I can enjoy my right to security during my unemployment. Really, this isn't a right, this is a welfare program.

Try reading. How does you not wanting to work fit into a "lack of livelihood beyond [your] control"?

 

[Cyrus]

Try reading. How does you not wanting to work fit into a "lack of livelihood beyond [your] control"?

You should see how people milk the welfare system in this country. There is a difference huge between theory and practice. What does 'beyond my control' even mean? The economy is bad, it's beyond my control - gimme money.

 

[Cyrus]

Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

I want to work one day a month, and rest the other days. Seems reasonable to me.

Article 26
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

I want free school, gimme that too. It's my RIGHT.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

That's it I am running for office, and don't you dare attack my honor or reputation as Corrupt Governor Cyrus!

 

[cristo]

I want free school, gimme that too. It's my RIGHT.

Did you read that either? It says that elementary and fundamental education should be free, and that higher education should be accessible to all based upon merit and not on the ability to pay. Obviously, the US does not uphold the latter!

That's it I am running for office, and don't you dare attack my honor or reputation as Corrupt Governor Cyrus!

Cyrus, what does the word "arbitrary" mean in the first line of the article you quoted?

 

[Char. Limit]

Thanks for the UDHR stuff. Article 15 looks like the answer to the Nationalism thread. Too bad I can't link on a Wii...

 

[Cyrus]

Did you read that either? It says that elementary and fundamental education should be free, and that higher education should be accessible to all based upon merit and not on the ability to pay. Obviously, the US does not uphold the latter!

You'll have to excuse us silly AMURIKANS, with our top higher education system in the world.

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, what does the word "arbitrary" mean in the first line of the article you quoted?

Don't you dare try to have satire about me on late night programs, that would be an arbitrary attack of my character! I'll sue you! (see larry flynt vs falwell).

 

[cristo]

You'll have to excuse us silly AMURIKANS, with our top higher education system in the world.

Top higher education system? I must have missed that memo.

 

[Cyrus]

Top higher education system? I must have missed that memo.

You know, ...MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Harvard, etc.

Article 25 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.

Yay for government handouts!

 

[cristo]

You know, ...MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Harvard, etc.

Oh, I see, you mean the universities that are (mostly) ranked lower than the British universities.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/educ...0/02/25/worlds-best-universities-top-400.html

 

[Office_Shredder]

Oh, I see, you mean the universities that are (mostly) ranked lower than the British universities.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/educ...0/02/25/worlds-best-universities-top-400.html

The US has 6 of the top 10 schools on that list, and 13 of the top 20.

Arguing whether the US or UK has a better university system based on a world ranking list is fairly arbitrary and does little to further the discussion at hand.

Going back to the declaration of human rights, I don't see how a document can propose to call itself a list of fundamental human rights when it states that education should be compulsory. Making something compulsory is in fact the opposite of declaring something a "right".

 

[SixNein]

The cause is this: Rights are protections, not financial gifts - healthcare has no basis for being called a "right" and does not fit with the concept of rights. By taking things that have no logical/philosophical/theoretical basis as rights and granting them the status of rights, you create the above incongruity. It is fine that you believe that the government should be made to provide such things, but they are not rights, they are simply government services like roads and museums.

Rights are human constructions. For example, free speech is a right, but it is also a property. According to the Bill of Rights, I have the right to free speech. According to article one of the constitution, I also have the right to own such speech under copyright law. I have the right to sell my speech, and I have the right to sue others who 'borrow' my speech. But a question arises, do I have absolute free speech? Obviously, I do not because I cannot reproduce your free speech unless I independently create it or license it from you. So in theory, I do not have complete freedom of speech. There are other snags on speech, but the point is that it is all artificial. Rights may be defined as what you can do without getting into some kind of legal trouble. An even better definition would be: A right is what is expected of the government that rules the population.

Can health-care be called a right? I suppose it depends on how a person views the *right* to live. Do people deserve life? Not a very good question I suppose. A better question may be: Should governments do everything within their power to protect the lives of their citizens? Military is often said to exist for such purposes. One often hears governments declare that the military is protecting citizens. So would health-care also protect citizens? I think so for several reasons.

1. Obviously, access to health-care saves lives.
2. Not so obvious, sickness spreads throughout a population. By denying a certain portion of the population access to health-care, the other portion with access may have an increased chance of becoming sick. Why? Sickness is often contagious. Although health-care may first appear a "financial gift", one may be protecting oneself and becoming less sick.
3. Very not so obvious, a lot of people without health-care may be doing 'self-treatments.' For example, one has went to the doctor and has left over antibiotics and gives the remaining antibiotics to the person without health-care. The antibiotics are used improperly, and the bug develops resistance to antibiotics making it more difficult to treat. The 'hard-working and financially independent' person comes along and catches said sickness, and he or she has a very difficult time getting rid of the bug because the bug has developed a resistance to the antibiotics. The person spends a lot of money, loses productivity, and may even lose some functionality.

In a basic nutshell, I would not call health-care a gift; instead, I would say it is in the best interest of self preservation even when the health-care is provided to others at some expense to yourself.

 

[apeiron]

LOL, the declaration of human toilet paper, as I call it. It's great for wiping one's backside.

Cyrus, you're doing an outstanding job at confirming international prejudices about the way Americans really think. Congrats.

Try seeing the bigger picture. Why is Mexico a place which people might want to leave? Could it have anything to do with drugs and oil - the two biggest exports to the US?

The US is the prime customer in the trades that have created a corrupt and lazy state. (And when the oil revenues go into fast decline, the US really will have an angry mess on its doorstep.)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_23/b4037051.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/americas/09iht-letter.1.19217792.html

So which country is actually undermining the social structure of the other here?

 

[drankin]

Cyrus, you're doing an outstanding job at confirming international prejudices about the way Americans really think. Congrats.

Try seeing the bigger picture. Why is Mexico a place which people might want to leave? Could it have anything to do with drugs and oil - the two biggest exports to the US?

The US is the prime customer in the trades that have created a corrupt and lazy state. (And when the oil revenues go into fast decline, the US really will have an angry mess on its doorstep.)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_23/b4037051.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/americas/09iht-letter.1.19217792.html

So which country is actually undermining the social structure of the other here?

Since when is this a discussion about undermining social structures? Your bias clouds your arguments to the point of making them irrelevant to the topic.

We don't want illegal immigration and we don't want their babies.

 

[russ_watters]

...and we don't want their drugs. Oil, on the other hand, is a mutually beneficial legal export.

 

[SixNein]

Cyrus, you're doing an outstanding job at confirming international prejudices about the way Americans really think. Congrats.

The document is a nice gesture.

Try seeing the bigger picture. Why is Mexico a place which people might want to leave? Could it have anything to do with drugs and oil - the two biggest exports to the US?

The cartels are the largest problem. At one time, the immigrants returned home after they worked in the US and started businesses. As the cartels grew more and more powerful, things started to change. I've spoken with a few of the immigrants, and they say that when they return home to start a business, the cartels are moving in and taking it over. In addition, it is very dangerous. Some of the cartels control parts of the country and impose their own laws and taxes. So for now, they are staying inside of America.

So which country is actually undermining the social structure of the other here?

The United States is not undermining anything. Mexico simply has a very weak and highly corrupt government. The error of the United States is ignoring the problem.

 

[Gokul43201]

One thing at a time.

Try seeing the bigger picture. Why is Mexico a place which people might want to leave? Could it have anything to do with drugs and oil - the two biggest exports to the US?

The US is the prime customer in the trades that have created a corrupt and lazy state. (And when the oil revenues go into fast decline, the US really will have an angry mess on its doorstep.)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_23/b4037051.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/americas/09iht-letter.1.19217792.html

So which country is actually undermining the social structure of the other here?

Are you seriously suggesting that the US is to be blamed for undermining the social structure of Mexico by purchasing the oil that Mexico wants to export? You would prefer that the US impose an embargo on Mexican Oil?

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, you're doing an outstanding job at confirming international prejudices about the way Americans really think. Congrats.

Try seeing the bigger picture. Why is Mexico a place which people might want to leave? Could it have anything to do with drugs and oil - the two biggest exports to the US?

The US is the prime customer in the trades that have created a corrupt and lazy state. (And when the oil revenues go into fast decline, the US really will have an angry mess on its doorstep.)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_23/b4037051.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/americas/09iht-letter.1.19217792.html

Ohhh, now I see ...the rest of the world wants to use MY money to benefit THEIR social problems, and cry foul if I don't give it up. Hmmmmmm, yeah. No.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Did you read that either? It says that elementary and fundamental education should be free, and that higher education should be accessible to all based upon merit and not on the ability to pay. Obviously, the US does not uphold the latter!

Higher education in this country is available for free through grants and scholarships to those with surpassing merit and an inability to pay. Those who can pay must pay. Those who can not pay but are not necessarily of great merit may have access to loans and such to help pay and may have those loans deferred, or even forgiven, if they choose to take on certain professions that directly benefit their community.

In a basic nutshell, I would not call health-care a gift; instead, I would say it is in the best interest of self preservation even when the health-care is provided to others at some expense to yourself.

I do not consider health care a "right" though it is my personal opinion that medical professionals have a duty to preform services for their community and that the state is obligated to financially assist all those that directly provide such essential services to the community in so far as is practicable. Taking an angle from this direction seems much more logical to me. The case could be made that the US government does not do all that is practicable to provide for such services and I would not necessarily disagree.

 

[mheslep]

Simply posting up the UN's Universal (self declared) Declaration of Human Rights as to what is, or is not, a right is an argument from authority.

 

[mheslep]

...and we don't want their drugs.

Well we don't want the violence, crime and border disorder that comes with it. Clearly many want Mexican drugs, even the odd non-inhaling US President.

 

[apeiron]

Ohhh, now I see ...the rest of the world wants to use MY money to benefit THEIR social problems, and cry foul if I don't give it up. Hmmmmmm, yeah. No.

You don't get it. Your money is creating their social problems. And when some of these problems spill over onto your territory, you bleat self pityingly.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Could it have anything to do with drugs and oil - the two biggest exports to the US?

Cite?

 

[Cyrus]

You don't get it. Your money is creating their social problems. And when some of these problems spill over onto your territory, you bleat self pityingly.

Woe is Mexico.

Side question, do you live in the US, or Europe?

 

[apeiron]

Cite?

Yes, I did :zzz:.

Click? No you didn't.

 

[apeiron]

Woe is Mexico.

Side question, do you live in the US, or Europe?

Neither.

 

[Cyrus]

Neither.

Mexico? LOL.

 

[Al68]

Rights are human constructions. For example, free speech is a right, but it is also a property. According to the Bill of Rights, I have the right to free speech. According to article one of the constitution, I also have the right to own such speech under copyright law. I have the right to sell my speech, and I have the right to sue others who 'borrow' my speech. But a question arises, do I have absolute free speech? Obviously, I do not because I cannot reproduce your free speech unless I independently create it or license it from you. So in theory, I do not have complete freedom of speech. There are other snags on speech, but the point is that it is all artificial. Rights may be defined as what you can do without getting into some kind of legal trouble. An even better definition would be: A right is what is expected of the government that rules the population.

Can health-care be called a right?

As is common today, you are using the word "right" as a synonym for "entitlement". Historically, those words were not used interchangeably, as they are based on two completely different concepts.

An entitlement is the result of human agreement or contract, like you were saying. An entitlement to half off my next oil change, as a non-politicized example.

A right is the result of nature, and is based on what we naturally have the ability to do. A right to blink, as a non-politicized example. This is why they are often referred to as "natural" or "God-given" rights. They exist independently of any human agreement or contract.

It's unfortunate that these words are so often used interchangeably, since there is no other synonym for either that effectively differentiates the two different concepts.

The constitution contains no references to entitlements, only rights. And no rights are "granted" by the constitution, only protected from infringement.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, I did :zzz:.

Click? No you didn't.

Interesting second article - says nothing in support of your claim, btw.

 

[Hurkyl]

A right is the result of nature, and is based on what we naturally have the ability to do. A right to blink, as a non-politicized example. This is why they are often referred to as "natural" or "God-given" rights. They exist independently of any human agreement or contract.

Right! Like Hobbes says, I have the natural right to kill you, if I so choose.


On this topic, I much prefer Jonathan Wallace:

The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.​

 

[SixNein]

As is common today, you are using the word "right" as a synonym for "entitlement". Historically, those words were not used interchangeably, as they are based on two completely different concepts.

An entitlement is the result of human agreement or contract, like you were saying. An entitlement to half off my next oil change, as a non-politicized example.

A right is the result of nature, and is based on what we naturally have the ability to do. A right to blink, as a non-politicized example. This is why they are often referred to as "natural" or "God-given" rights. They exist independently of any human agreement or contract.

I have the natural ability to kill another person. Do I have the right to murder?Article 1 section 8 of the United States constitution provides exclusive rights:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

 

[apeiron]

Interesting second article - says nothing in support of your claim, btw.

Curious comment. I pointed out that a US appetite for drugs risks Mexico becoming a failed state. What else is the article about?

 

[Cyrus]

Curious comment. I pointed out that a US appetite for drugs risks Mexico becoming a failed state. What else is the article about?

Right, you said the US buys oil from Mexico. Your article talks about extreme corruption with drug runners. The fact that drugs are (illegally) smugged into the US boarders, actually makes my argument of strong boarder protection. So I'm curious as to why you would try and argue this position?