Zuckerberg: Immigration 'one of biggest civil rights' issues of our time

f4rwest
reply to post by jacygirl

 

You're trying to deny that evil exists, well I'm sorry but it does.

Borders are necessary to maintain a society. I'm not saying they will keep a society from destroying itself, all nations eventually crumble, it's only a matter of time. You just start the cycle over again.

Think of a family unit. People always care more about their family members than they would someone else down the street. People will always care more about their hometown than they will about a town on the opposite side of the country. That's life, that's nature - you are just a man, you don't control it.

Family is supposed to be the tightest bond a human being can have. You share blood, yet, there are fights in families all them time. If you can't keep a family perfectly together, how do you suppose we keep an entire planet together?

It's really common sense if your head isnt in the clouds.

I disagree with all of this
Common sense? Common sense says that the planet is going to hell, that there are massive differences between say Africa and USA, India and UK.

We should be ASHAMED that there are billions of people starving, dying of aids, being persecuted because of being born.

If you think sitting at home in your sports clothes at your apple mac telling people that they have no common sense because ''look what borders give us'' please save it for for another sheep.

'' People always care more about their family members than they would someone else down the street. ''

Speaking on behalf of the 7 Billion on the planet.
Let us say you mean the majority, still doesn't make it correct, would you lose your cell phone and TV if it meant saving 100 lives? what about saving one life? or you can go on the internet and tell people HOW THEY FEEL.

Ludicrous.

People are people, the human race, no higher and lower beings, we are all the same, WE HAVE IT GOOD, many of us want EVERYONE to have it good.

That my friend is common sense.

Thank you Cuervo, LocalGenius, mekhanics, Taggart...
It seems that I'm not alone in my beliefs that ALL human beings on this earth should be able to live and thrive.
It is atrocious that someone is more deserving because they were born in a country that offers more opportunity.
It is repugnant that people spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on toys for themselves, while others are scratching out an existence.
Just because I don't have all the answers...does not mean that I do not see the problems. We need a new mindset and a new system.
jacygirl

reply to post by Aazadan


No brother, I am not proposing anarchy at all... just simply proposing true freedom. You seem to have a very low view on the human kind, do you think if we dropped borders and laws that we wouldn't know what to do with ourselfs and start killing each other or something? The good thing about us humans is we are very compassionate and we know the difference between right and wrong.

Just think back a few thousand years buddy and try to put yourself in a mindset from then, do you think you could ever imagine living like you do today? Humans were not meant to live like this my friend, we were not meant to become lazy and dependent on a system that keeps us trapped.

So 'ILLEGAL' immigration is a 'civil right' ?

It is a civil right to break any LAW a person doesn't particularly like.

THAT is what Zuxkerberg is saying.

THAT is what all those who support illegal immigration is saying.

That is like saying fine RULES/LAWS don't matter.

That is giving EVERYONE PERMISSION to go to CE home. They don't have to knock to come in. They don't have to ask for permission to come in. They don't have to ask permission for the beer in his fridge, and just plop their butts on his couch start watching some hockey on the television.

Then calls up and invites all his friends, and tells them there's a party at 'his' house.

Then CE comes home, and there is not a damn thing he can do about it.

Can't tell them to leave after all it's a 'civil right'.

Illegal immigration is illegal for a reason.

As with all things in the great dysfunctional states of America we do have rules/laws. They are made for a reason.

You,me and a boy named dupree don't get to pick and choose what laws get to be followed.

They are for everyone or no one.

Bottom line breaking laws is not nor will it ever be a 'civil right'.

No matter how they try to make 'emotional argument's.

here is the expanded story just out on foxnews

www.foxnews.com...

Zucker's an idiot. It seems as though he just likes to hear himself say things, sometimes. I'm sure he understands exactly what he means, but then again, if I had his money, I might just say stupid things too just for the heck of it.

ChesterJohn
It would seem that an understanding or a lack of it concerning the word "Civil" needs to be brought up. Civil is the word given to mean Civilian so what Zuckerberg is saying is “I think this is one of the biggest "civilian" rights issues of our time,”

A civilian of any nation is a legal resident or citizen of that nation who is not involved in Military or Religious work. Civilians workers are legal, law abiding citizens of a Nation.

Civilian. Private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the armed services, or (in England) the church. One who is skilled or versed in the civil law.

The above definition is taken from Black's Law Dictionary. I'm leaning towards the former regarding this context.

Civil liberties. Personal, natural rights guaranteed and protected by Constitution; e.g. freedom of speech, press, freedom from discrimination, etc. Body of law dealing with natural liberties, shorn of excess which invade equal rights of others. Constitutionally, they are restraints on government. Sowers v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 20 Ohio Misc. 115, 252, N.E.2d 463, 476. (Coincidentally, Ohio never ratified the 14th Amendment)
State law may recognize liberty interests more extensive than those independently protected by the Federal Constitution. Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 300, 102 S.Ct. 2442, 2449, 73 L.Ed.2d 16 (1982). See also Bill of Rights; Civil Rights Acts; Fundamental rights.

M.Z. is only using his position within society to draw attention to a growing fundamental problem regarding human rights. "Path to citizenship" and "immigration reform" aren't necessarily the same thing. He's merely expressing an opinion without claiming to be an authority whereas you clearly lack the fundamental knowledge to make an informed statement yourself.

There used to be a time in this nation when aliens could not only legally reside here without government approval, they could also work and lead productive lives. The only real limitations were they could not own land, or vote. There was even a time when an invitation from a citizen served as a functional equivalent of a passport to gain entry into our nations.

What people really have to ask themselves regarding this issue is simple, do *human beings* have a natural right to pick up and move, freeing themselves of government and economic oppression? I'm not talking about citizenship, citizenship and civil rights are two completely separate legal and moral issues.


EDIT: Maybe my central point wasn't very clear. Civil and Civilian are not the same thing, Civil is not an abbreviation, it relates to the public body of law.

LocalGenius
reply to post by Aazadan

 

I wouldn't really want to compare a dog marking a territory to a human creating a border, but yeah I can see what you're saying buddy

I just think every human should have just as much right as any other human to call anywhere on this planet home... We were all born on this planet so why can't we decide where we want to live/work, just because we was born on a rock that's across some water shouldn't mean we can't go and live/work on a different rock, these rocks are under the same sky, we have blood running through our veins just as you do, 10 fingers 10 toes, just as you.

It will never happen because MONEY, you know that thing that enslaves us, that we spend most of our life "earning" just to live... Not to be happy, but just to get by for most of us, if we wasn't too busy "earning" it then maybe we would have time to be happy.

Also please explain "The concepts of freedom and sovereignty require borders to exist" how you figure that out... Freedom and borders do not mix my friend, here a little example.

Me: Excuse me Mr border patrol man I'm just going to pass...
Mr Border man: Nope
wheres the freedom in that mate?

edit on 23-11-2013 by LocalGenius because: forgot something

There is a financial concept called "supply and demand". If supply exceeds demand, prices fall. If demand exceeds supply, prices rise. This applies to everything from home prices, apartment rentals, job wages, bank savings rates to food prices.

If you have a sudden arrival of people caused by rapidly growing companies, then you get a housing boom, but then when it is over, you get a housing bust, when wages fall, consumer demand falls and apartment rental prices start to fall. But if that sudden arrival of people happens when there are no new jobs being created, then wages fall but property and rental prices rise.

LocalGenius
reply to post by Aazadan

 

No brother, I am not proposing anarchy at all... just simply proposing true freedom. You seem to have a very low view on the human kind, do you think if we dropped borders and laws that we wouldn't know what to do with ourselfs and start killing each other or something? The good thing about us humans is we are very compassionate and we know the difference between right and wrong.

Just think back a few thousand years buddy and try to put yourself in a mindset from then, do you think you could ever imagine living like you do today? Humans were not meant to live like this my friend, we were not meant to become lazy and dependent on a system that keeps us trapped.

True freedom is anarchy. Otherwise we agree as a society to live by certain rules or laws for common benefit. Those laws then have to be enforced by a government. Those governments have to have a range to their jurisdiction though in order to avoid arguments as different groups wish to be governed by different laws. Which goes back to the idea that borders are a necessary and good thing.

As far as living like I do today, it's all just degrees of convenience. If we went back 1000 years our days wouldn't be all that different. We would shop at a market for food (assuming we weren't a farmer, technology has changed how many need to produce the food), work for some wages in some cases work harder than we do today, and in some cases have easier work, and spend time socializing. Drastically fewer of us would be educated, which means far fewer of us would be capable of imagining different systems. Feudalism and slavery have both been widely popular systems throughout history, and both trap people within the system. We're going through a bit of a revival of those ideas now, although they had been dying out.

reply to post by Aazadan


I'm pretty sure *you* can have true freedom and still posses a government which wouldn't be anarchy. Unless you mistakenly believe *true* freedom is the right to steal, murder and rape?

Government is nothing more than a 3rd party agency to handle disputes, its sole purpose isn't to limit your freedom, it acts as a proxy to the defenseless which is much the same as for example:

True freedom being the right to do whatever you want so if you try to murder someone, if that person engages in *true* freedom which limits your *true* freedom (notice how empty of a term *true* is) by fighting back then the government may take the place of that person and fight your attempt to commit murder against a person.

So there you have it, true freedom, government and no anarchy.

Next ridiculous assertion please.

DerbyGawker
reply to post by Aazadan

 

I'm pretty sure *you* can have true freedom and still posses a government which wouldn't be anarchy. Unless you mistakenly believe *true* freedom is the right to steal, murder and rape?

Isn't it? Freedom in it's purest definition means being able to do whatever you want. Protecting something also happens to mean restraining it. We agree to some restraints on our freedom in order to protect the group. I'm not saying this is a bad thing either, it's quite beneficial to have rules which society abides by (to an extent... it can also go too far and then you have the USSR or North Korea).

Aazadan

DerbyGawker
reply to post by Aazadan

 

I'm pretty sure *you* can have true freedom and still posses a government which wouldn't be anarchy. Unless you mistakenly believe *true* freedom is the right to steal, murder and rape?

Isn't it? Freedom in it's purest definition means being able to do whatever you want. Protecting something also happens to mean restraining it. We agree to some restraints on our freedom in order to protect the group. I'm not saying this is a bad thing either, it's quite beneficial to have rules which society abides by (to an extent... it can also go too far and then you have the USSR or North Korea).

If ultimate freedom means you have the right to trespass then someone else has the right to trespass against you, even a 3rd party on behalf of an individual (government). So you still have the "natural right" to murder, but the government has the right to stop you and murder you on behalf of your intended victim.

Anarchy is nonsense, there will never be anarchy because rules (governance) will always exist. The form under which they exist may vary and may appear to include a lack of government but that's just ridiculous.

Divine Strake
Zucker's an idiot. It seems as though he just likes to hear himself say things, sometimes. I'm sure he understands exactly what he means, but then again, if I had his money, I might just say stupid things too just for the heck of it.

yeah, dweebs are out in full force.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed




my descendants immigrated legally

reply to post by tsingtao


Sorry for the long delay in my response, but am I to understand that you're calling me a dweeb? Not that it matters, I just like be sure I understand the context in which people speak.

I'm surprised a MOD didn't make the same assessment.