This entire discussion is moot because you’re all talking about VISITOR visas, not working visas.
These guys were working.
If they respected the immigration laws then they wouldn’t be living in the country in the first place. So you saying they should obey the laws that deny them entry into a place so they can be the kind of law-abiding citiens that would be welcomed into such a place?
I can tell you’ve really thought this through.
1 Like
In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total
2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
^You gonna fix this too?
(thanks mods… I keep a copy of these now)
whose views on kettling we don’t know
Do their views matter, considering they’re expected to follow orders to kettle irrespective of their views?
Look at those goalposts go.
1 Like
This is a poor justification for being stoned and endangering people’s lives. Many states are considering lowering the BAC rules. You have confused a legal setpoint that provides evidence of guilt with an ethical guideline on how to behave while driving a machine that could kill other people if you are impaired. The ethical guideline is clear: you should not operate a vehicle if there is anything that significantly reduces your ability to safely operate the vehicle, whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or sleep deprivation. My guideline is simple: not tired and BAC of 0.0. It is not hard, it simply requires planning. You should do the same before you kill someone.
To be honest, I have some sympathy with where wysinwyg’s is coming from, but I disagree with a lot of what he was saying. For example, the fact that you enter the country legally is no justification for outstaying your visa. I have a Spanish friend who did the same in China - he was kicked out as soon as the authorities found out. If a lot of Spanish people did that, the rules would probably become stricter for future Spanish visa applicants. Whenever I come to America (as a white, male, privileged European), I get some fairly strict warnings about what will happen if I outstay my welcome or violate the terms of my visa (such as by working). I know a few Chinese people who have visited America under a tourist visa; a number of them talked about staying there illegally or had definite plans to do so. It’s unfortunate, but they felt that it would be better to risk deportation as an illegal immigrant than to remain in their country as a professional. It’s also unfortunate that this fact will make them more likely to break immigration law and will therefore make it more difficult for Chinese people to enter. (I actually have a lot of sympathy for people trying to enter legally, as it took hours of negotiation to get a tourist visa for my four year old adopted son (who was being treated as any other Chinese person and was therefore considered a risk).
At a basic level, a sovereign country has the right to police its borders and define the terms by which people can enter. Likewise, no one has a fundamental right to enter a foreign country or to stay there without permission. It may be morally justifiable to consider your family first when you make life decisions, but the fact that a country isn’t the country of your birth has no bearing on whether you should respect their laws; if anything, you should respect a foreign country’s laws more because you actually chose to live there rather than just being born there.
I agree that immigration law is problematic - it doesn’t cover everyone who needs asylum, and certainly not everyone who would benefit in some way from living in the US. Sometimes people feel forced to find a new home because of the situations in their own country. This should be reflected in the way immigration law is made and illegal immigrants are treated, but no country is obligated to solve everyone else’s problems or to help everyone to improve their lives.
2 Likes
There’s a difference between recognizing that you have privilege and waving it in everyone’s faces. Incidentally, let us know how far your privilege takes you if you get caught with a burned out light bulb and test positive for marijuana.
Or another way to look at it, people from rich countries, don’t need a visa, where people from poor countries do. Why? Because rich people go home. Poor people don’t.
I never said that I wouldn’t do the same thing if I was in their shoes. What I said was that they assumed the risk of deportation if they run afoul of the law. I certainly wouldn’t be crying about how unfair it was for me to be deported if I got caught. I also specifically said that they didn’t deserve to be exploited, and do deserve a “safe haven” if you will when reporting crimes (e.g. California’s Trust Act).
Why would you bring up Mexican narcos driving without a license in Mexico when talking about Mexican workers in the US driving without a license? Are you implying that the undocumented immigrants in this case were narcos? There’s no reason to suspect that. Or are you saying that since the law can be flaunted in Mexico with a few well placed bribes and/or bullets then who are we to say that these migrant workers should have a license to drive because requiring a driver license is disrespectful to their culture (of law breaking)? Or are you just saying that all laws are pointless because crime always exists?
Bless your heart and your racist preconceptions of those you advocate for.
The point is that he seems to have a lot of concern for the 35,000 people killed in motor accidents (the vast minority of whom were killed by drivers under the influence of marijuana) while the US cruises along with idiotic gun laws which are directly responsible for a similar number of total deaths per year. Cars get you from place to place while guns just shoot stuff.
No one? Nice sweeping, untrue statement.
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum.
Under these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside their own country’s territory owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
Incidentally, let us know how far your privilege takes you if you get caught with a burned out light bulb and test positive for marijuana.
I’ve dealt with cops while driving high many times (50+ probably). If you’re polite, look them in the eye, be ready to hand over your licence as soon as they get to the window they will have no suspicions that you have anything to hide. Also the cops here aren’t assholes. They might breath test you (alcohol) but police cars don’t typically carry marijuana swabs. Provided you aren’t drunk and you’re polite the worst they’ll do is write you a warning for the light and send you on your way.
Why would you bring up Mexican narcos driving without a license in Mexico when talking about Mexican workers in the US driving without a license?
Because I was responding to your own claim (“No one can do that, not even in Mexico.”) by giving an example which instantly disproves it. Try to keep up.
Are you implying that the undocumented immigrants in this case were narcos?
since the law can be flaunted in Mexico with a few well placed bribes and/or bullets
disrespectful to their culture (of law breaking)
No, that would be YOU doing that with your own commentary. I said none of those things so if you read that into my comments it’s more of an indication of how you think than how I think.
Since many societies (including the one I live in) have determined that less than 0.05% BAC is a level of alcohol intoxication which does not significantly reduce ability to safely drive and since the data I linked shows that marijuana intoxication has less of an impact on driving accidents than drinking to the 0.05% BAC limit, I think any assertion that because I am driving while stoned I am some terrible risk to society is not backed by relevant data.
Here, like most places, we have a problem with drink driving. That means if you plan on going anywhere that is worth going on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night it is likely you will be breath tested (for alcohol) at a random breath test. I live in a place that is particularly popular and not far from the city and so I encounter breath-testing cops far more regularly than most drivers. Once a month for 5 years is enough to get more than 50.
I’ve even gone into a police station less than 30 minutes after smoking a couple bongs to report some douchebag whose unsecured load came off his truck and cracked my windscreen. Cops typically won’t think that well-spoken people who show up at a police station to report something are high.
Reading comprehension fail. Try again.
The societies have not determined that less than 0.05% is safe. In fact, the government acknowledges that it is impairing, which is why there are more restrictive limits to minors, pilots, and people who operate nuclear reactors. The 0.08% or 0.05% limits are legal limits which prove guilt. You can still be legally impaired below that limit, but it is harder to prove. And none of this says why your being impaired by being stoned is not a significant risk. You are going to kill or hurt someone if you continue as you are. Don’t drive impaired (drunk, stoned, or tired). If you do then you are a bad person.
They have the right to seek asylum and have it granted if they have a legitimate claim, but this is not the same thing as entering or staying in a country without permission.
I was actually stopped for speeding while I was last in the US. When the officer saw my UK licence he asked me about my status in the country. I had a valid visa so it wasn’t an issue, but it’s not like my nationality or skin color would have kept me from being removed from the country if I had been there illegally.
You fail at reading comprehension too. I never equated one with the other, I just pointed out that the previous poster’s comparisons with alcohol as an argument to say that pot is safe is complete bullshit, since that poster was saying that the society and government had blessed 0.08% or 0.05% as being completely safe, while pot is safer.
Drivers who consume cannabis within three hours of driving are nearly
twice as likely to cause a vehicle collision as those who are not
under the influence of drugs or alcohol
The evidence does not support that being stoned is safe. Don’t fucking do it. I don’t care if it is safer than being minimally drunk. I really don’t. If that is your best argument for saying that pot is safe, then you have failed. You need to discuss its absolute impairment, not the fact that lobbyists and politicians want to keep the illegal alcohol BAC level at a high enough threshold that bars and sports franchises don’t lose money. The alcohol BAC level should be lower and people shouldn’t drive stoned.
2 Likes
Why is it always agree to disagree? Why can’t we disagree to agree?
“Likewise, no one has a fundamental right to enter a foreign country…”
^I was responding to this particular statement and the fact that it could be argued that many of the people entering the US from Mexico are legitimate refugees fleeing the extreme violence brought, in part, by America’s war on drugs and loose-as-fuck gun policy.
