[Not loaded yet]
This user blocks the person they're replying to.
They're supposed to be here for a few months. It is clearly defined as a "Temporary Work" program.
How does agreeing to come, harvest some tomatoes and on completion go home, translate to "they completed the citizenship process." All those waiting in the legitimate immigration line beg to differ.
This sounds like when EMTs complain that McDonalds workers are striking for a livable wage because they they themselves only make a few dollars per hour more, instead of saying wait we should also me making more.
How does this make any sense in context at all? Explain yourself.
Instead of saying that since group A has to suffer hardship, so does every body else maybe you should argue that Group A doesn't suffer at all.
Non sequitur. I say people should make agreements in good faith and not cry foul when its terms are expected to be honoured. At best your group A is composed of people who willfully lied at the intended expense of group B.
Or are you saying don't punish killers because we're lenient to shoplifters.
Who are you comparing people going through legal immigration procedures in this analogy?
People who agree to do a temporary job and return to their own country on completion, but instead demand to be made citizens and remain illegally, which is what this particular thread has been about.
May 12, 2025 17:05Your analogy uses crime to make a point about... something. Which one is the violent criminal in your analogy, and which one has committed a civil infraction (is not criminal)?
I use it to illustrate logic, not for the merit of the placeholders. Saying we do A so we *must* do B, is riddled with problems.
No one here has yet made a reasonable case to disregard the explicit agreements made by temporary workers. There is no negotiation involved, they already made the deal.
