Inganno's Reviews

[Ackbar : Espionage]

Best series ever.

Flimmer flammer jibber jabber.

[Don't Deport Me Scotty]

Wonderful flash movie, but the message...

I find the message itself valid; that is, a caution against systematic government endorsed discrimination. However, for the sake of clarification, I would like to observe that the notion that such xenophobia is prevalent in American society in a way that conflicts with the rights of immigrants is not founded in an actual understanding of the situation.

I would like to point out that, one, any discrimination that occurs on the level of the private sector is not, in fact, true discrimination (no matter how many people in the government may pretend otherwise). It is in accordance with human rights that individuals outside of the government utilize their liberties and properties in any way they see fit, insofar as it does not physically coerce individuals in a way that is inconsistent with rights as a whole. When a hotel owner advertises that his facility is "American Owned", he is being nationalistic, and perhaps bigoted. But to coerce the hotel owner to celebrate any and all cultures, and to coerce him into not celebrating solely his way of life, destroys any possibility of a moral environment by eliminating the element of choice. If there is no choice, there is no possibility for a "moral" action (not necessarily in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term; but merely the action which is, by definition, the action which we /ought/ to do).

A right, in the correct sense of the term, is an extension of a human beings right to himself and his labor, and these alone. Legal statutes as to a legal right are invalid, as these depend entirely on the circumstantial status of the legal institutions. So, Liberty and Property are human rights; entitlement to elderly compensation is merely a legal right.

In conclusion of this point, for true infringement on human rights to occur, it must be a part of /official government policy/.

Which brings me to my second point, which is that the actions of certain individuals within the government cannot be equated to the policy of government as a whole. Let's say a judge makes an unfair ruling for someone "because his name sounds funny." Wrong, yes. But not a part of government policy, and therefore the concern is not the discriminatory attitude, but strictly the illegal action (if it is indeed illegal), and the administration of proper penalties.

These two points, that "discrimination" cannot occur on the private level, nor be considered in the case of rogue government officials, clears the debate enough for me to address your thesis: that current and /official/ government attitudes towards immigrants denies immigrants their rights and due process under law.

I'll further refine the point by differentiating between something being immoral, and something infringing upon someone's rights. If I infringe upon rights, it is /always/ immoral. But I can lie (something immoral), and it not infringe upon anyone's rights. (For further clarification, look into Kant's differentiation between Ethic and Virtue).

One, governments only /owe/ their services to /citizens/, by virtue of the fact that /citizens form and instate the government/. If this were not the case, then /every government/ would have duties to /all nations of peoples/. This is like saying it's Ford's obligation to address the concerns of everybody who owns any kind of car. It's just an invalid argument.

Two, as such, the government has a right to be exclusive to immigrants. Whether this is /ethical/ or not is not the issue; the point is that nations have a right to rule themselves, and cannot be forced to accept every other nation in the world.

If they /should/, then you could argue it is the obligation of citizens to change the policies. But if the policies are exclusive, then it must be changed through democracy, not coercion by benevolent and absolute authorities.

As such, government does not infringe upon the rights of immigrants when it excludes them.

As for your concerns about due process, due process only applies to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." They therefore don't apply to immigrants.

[War.]

One of the Best.

To previous comment: LOL @ MALTHUS!

To movie: It great success!!

[Interactive Buddy v.1.01]

Bouncing Baby Jesus on a Pogo-Stick

Dude. This is one of the few games where I can beat up both John Kerry and nail obese over-rated movie directors within ten seconds of each other. Truly awesome. If a version came out where the stupid thing was on the desk-top of my computer and followed me around, I'd buy it in a heart beat.