DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on May 24, 2007, 02:02:04 AM
-
Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.
As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_amnesty_fraud.html
-
Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.
As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?
I certainly hope so.
My main problem with the arguments denouncing "amnesty" (which apparently means anything short of tarring, feathering and chasing the people out of the country with a bullwhip) is that there should not be anything for which to give the immigrants amnesty. They should not need amnesty. They should be allowed to come and go with about the same ease that American citizens travel from one state to another.
-
They should not need amnesty. They should be allowed to come and go with about the same ease that American citizens travel from one state to another.[/color]
Scary. :-\ The national security ramifications alone should torpedo that notion. And no, it's not specific to "mexicans" only. The Ecnomic crush to our healthcare and education systems, as manifested in their current forms, also demonstrates how bad an idea that mindset really is.
-
My main problem with the arguments denouncing "amnesty" (which apparently means anything short of tarring, feathering and chasing the people out of the country with a bullwhip) is that there should not be anything for which to give the immigrants amnesty. They should not need amnesty. They should be allowed to come and go with about the same ease that American citizens travel from one state to another.
Well said Prince.
I completely agree.
-
The national security ramifications alone should torpedo that notion.
Why?
The Ecnomic crush to our healthcare and education systems, as manifested in their current forms, also demonstrates how bad an idea that mindset really is.
On the contrary, that demonstrates a problem with the healthcare and education systems, not with free immigration. Then again, open immigration would result in millions if not billions of additional tax dollars being added to the system. All those immigrants, even the ones coming in for work and going home, would be paying taxes when they buy stuff here and would be having their payroll taxes taken from them.
-
I agree with Prince?
I believe that all things being equal, people prefer to stay in their own country. Mexico is a beautiful and temperate place to be. They come here to support their families back home for the most part. These are decent , hard working & family oriented people . We need more , not less , of them here. These are the people that will be supporting us with their taxes for our baby boomers retirement. Let's not make it harder for them to improve this country.
-
The national security ramifications alone should torpedo that notion.
Why?
It boggles the mind that you'd have no problem with would be terrorists, just walking right into this country, with whatever WMD they may have aquired, or some form of mass killing to initiate, as easy as myself crossing California into Nevada. And you have to ask "why"?
The Ecnomic crush to our healthcare and education systems, as manifested in their current forms, also demonstrates how bad an idea that mindset really is.
On the contrary, that demonstrates a problem with the healthcare and education systems, not with free immigration.
Wrong I'm afraid Prince. With the intimate understanding I have being in the healthcare industry, the issue with the problems of both healthcare and education is the overriding Federal bureacracy attached to both, severely exacebated by the sheer # of immigrants who are accessing the finate resources of both, who are here illegally. Not the primary problem, I concede, but an ever worsening secondary problem. Remove that #, and the system is made much more functional & cost effective. And if we could get our primary wish, it'd be to remove as much of Government out of both areas, as possible
Then again, open immigration would result in millions if not billions of additional tax dollars being added to the system. All those immigrants, even the ones coming in for work and going home, would be paying taxes when they buy stuff here and would be having their payroll taxes taken from them.
I'm afraid that's distorted as the overwhelming majority of those workers will likely be very low paying positions, likley to be exempt from income taxes, and with the amounts required by taxpayers to to pay for their healthcare & education, FAR outpaces any revenues they could generate into the system. And if I recall in a recent think tank report I read, hypothetically if we did grant amnesty to the 9+million illegal immigrants, that's an additional 9+million who'd be joining the ranks of receiving SS at just about the time that SS will have already gone bankrupt trying to pay for those eligible Americans & legal immigrants
-
It boggles the mind that you'd have no problem with would be terrorists, just walking right into this country, with whatever WMD they may have aquired, or some form of mass killing to initiate, as easy as myself crossing California into Nevada. And you have to ask "why"?
Wow. That seems more than a tad unfair. How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? Or did I miss something while I was away from the Saloon and now you're advocating that everyone must pass through police checkpoints when traveling from one city or state to another?
With the intimate understanding I have being in the healthcare industry, the issue with the problems of both healthcare and education is the overriding Federal bureacracy attached to both, severely exacebated by the sheer # of immigrants who are accessing the finate resources of both, who are here illegally. Not the primary problem, I concede, but an ever worsening secondary problem. Remove that #, and the system is made much more functional & cost effective. And if we could get our primary wish, it'd be to remove as much of Government out of both areas, as possible
Your intimate understanding runs contrary to every reasonable investigation into the situation I've seen. Most immigrants, illegal and not, are trying to keep a low profile and generally end up putting more money into the system than they take out. I suggest that the problem of numbers would still exist if the tax paying immigrants, many of whom are technically here illegally and using fake I.D.s to get jobs, were all taken out of the equation. The fundamental problem is with the nature of the system, not the people. You won't solve the problem by taking away some of the people. A barely functional and cost ineffective system will not become more functional and cost effective if you take away people who both use and support the system. And quite frankly, in regard to health care and education, we should be trying to figure out how to be more helpful to everyone (and I don't mean via the government), including the immigrants, not trying to figure out how to exclude people.
I'm afraid that's distorted as the overwhelming majority of those workers will likely be very low paying positions, likley to be exempt from income taxes, and with the amounts required by taxpayers to to pay for their healthcare & education, FAR outpaces any revenues they could generate into the system. And if I recall in a recent think tank report I read, hypothetically if we did grant amnesty to the 9+million illegal immigrants, that's an additional 9+million who'd be joining the ranks of receiving SS at just about the time that SS will have already gone bankrupt trying to pay for those eligible Americans & legal immigrants
We don't know what jobs they would take. Migrant farm work is a small percentage of the work immigrants do here. Many more go into construction, which can pay pretty well. Even if they were exempt from federal income taxes, the FICA taxes, as always, would be taken anyway. But you're also ignoring state and local taxes, such as property taxes and sales taxes. So the notion that they would not be paying taxes is a false one. And I'm pretty sure that whatever think tank study you're talking about would not assume that all immigrants would become eligible for "Social Security" payouts at the same time. But even if the influx of immigrants did contribute to the bankruptcy of "Social Security", again I have to point out that would be because of the problem inherent within the nature of "Social Security" and not because of the people.
-
It boggles the mind that you'd have no problem with would be terrorists, just walking right into this country, with whatever WMD they may have aquired, or some form of mass killing to initiate, as easy as myself crossing California into Nevada. And you have to ask "why"?
Wow. That seems more than a tad unfair. How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? Or did I miss something while I was away from the Saloon and now you're advocating that everyone must pass through police checkpoints when traveling from one city or state to another?
No, the thing you're missing is how more and more limitations are placed on the many, due to the actions of a few. I just recently got back from vacation, and on one of our van driven tours, the driver had indicated so many of the old trails that were closed (some to to some of the most beautiful of waterfalls), due to those few tourists who completely ignored warning signs NOT to tresspass in those areas where flashfloods could occur, then getting caught up in said flashfloods, with many being swept out to sea and die. Subsequent lawsuits by families of those who ignored the warnings, and they then being awarded millions of dollars for failing to read the warnings. In my industry, we've had more and more regulations applied, with frequent denial of services, due to the fraud of those few taking advantage of the system. Point being, our borders are the 1st line of defense against foreign enemies. The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.
Your intimate understanding runs contrary to every reasonable investigation into the situation I've seen.
And strangely, I can apply how my understanding appears to run completely in line with most "reasonable investigations" and think tank studies I've seen
And quite frankly, in regard to health care and education, we should be trying to figure out how to be more helpful to everyone (and I don't mean via the government), including the immigrants, not trying to figure out how to exclude people.
No one's trying to exclude "people", only ILLEGAL people. A distinct & not-so-subtle difference
We don't know what jobs they would take. Migrant farm work is a small percentage of the work immigrants do here. Many more go into construction, which can pay pretty well. Even if they were exempt from federal income taxes, the FICA taxes, as always, would be taken anyway. But you're also ignoring state and local taxes, such as property taxes and sales taxes.
We kinda do. They'd take those jobs where the employers are desperate for the lowest waged worker. That's the whole issue here....employers and corporations willing to undercut american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at. And the vast majority of those illegal immigrats are likely to be renting vs paying property taxes, so there's another big# you can take out of the equation. But yes, they would have to pay sales taxes
So the notion that they would not be paying taxes is a false one.
Didn't say they wouldn't pay "any" taxes, so that's a false implication to begin with. The reference is in that they would pay far less in taxes compared to what they'd use in tax payer payed services
And I'm pretty sure that whatever think tank study you're talking about would not assume that all immigrants would become eligible for "Social Security" payouts at the same time. But even if the influx of immigrants did contribute to the bankruptcy of "Social Security", again I have to point out that would be because of the problem inherent within the nature of "Social Security" and not because of the people.
Again with the "all or nothing" inferrence. The reference was that the 9+million would likely be starting to receive SS benefits just after said system was completely bankrupt. And I won't even reference Medicare, as that will be an even worse scenario than SS
-
No, the thing you're missing is how more and more limitations are placed on the many, due to the actions of a few.
Completely irrelevant to what we were talking about, unless you're suggesting border security is important to keeping people out of flashfloods. So, back to my point: How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? It's pretty much the same thing. You have no border protection, so bad people with intentions of harming others can come right in to where you live with no one to stop them. How can you be so ignorant of the obvious need for closing off all state and city borders within the United States? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but it makes my point.
Point being, our borders are the 1st line of defense against foreign enemies. The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.
Your state borders are your first line of defense against rapists and pedophiles from other states. The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense. How can you ignore the obvious threat of pedophiles left free to enter your state as they please? Murderers, thieves, rapists, even terrorists here in the country on student visas, all free to walk across your state border unimpeded. How can you stand to allow such nonexistent border security? If your state has "better" government run social programs, you might even be in danger of homeless people and low-wage earners moving into your state and using up valuable resources. Clearly you need to do something about your state's open borders. So tell me, how soon will you be starting the campaign in your state for a guarded double fence along your state border? (Yes, still being sarcastic, but still making the point.)
my understanding appears to run completely in line with most "reasonable investigations" and think tank studies I've seen
I cannot find a single one that supports your view that taking away the illegal immigrants makes the health care and education systems "much more functional & cost effective." What I find says most of them are paying more in taxes than they ever get out of the system. Which means removing the illegal immigrants would be detrimental and not beneficial to those systems.
No one's trying to exclude "people", only ILLEGAL people. A distinct & not-so-subtle difference
As a fictional philosopher once correctly noted, "Peoples is peoples." I'm not exactly sure what the difference between "people" (in quotes) and ILLEGAL people is. Seems to me, they're all people. And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people. And one of the major problems with that, as I have mentioned before, is that those illegal immigrants shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
They'd take those jobs where the employers are desperate for the lowest waged worker. That's the whole issue here....employers and corporations willing to undercut american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at.
Um, no. They take the jobs they are willing to do for the pay offered. The same as everyone else. But this only helps my point. You can't have an underground market in jobs if you don't have an underground market in employees. Eliminate the onerous legal barriers, let people come here openly, and away goes most of the illegal employment of people at below market wages. This isn't rocket science. The issue here is not employers undercutting anyone. The issue is letting people have the liberty to seek employment and/or to employ as they see fit. It's called capitalism, and it works. But since you're concerned about employers undercutting "american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at", are you also in favor of minimum wage hikes? You're making almost the same argument as those who want to raise minimum wage. Have you joined the camp of those who believe the government needs to tell people how to run their businesses?
And the vast majority of those illegal immigrats are likely to be renting vs paying property taxes, so there's another big# you can take out of the equation.
I would like to know how you came to that particular conclusion.
The reference is in that they would pay far less in taxes compared to what they'd use in tax payer payed services
Again, this is contrary to all the evidence I have seen.
Again with the "all or nothing" inferrence. The reference was that the 9+million would likely be starting to receive SS benefits just after said system was completely bankrupt.
I inferred nothing. In any case, my point remains the same. A bankrupt "Social Security" system would be a result of the inherently faulty system not be the immigrants. To complain about immigrants, illegal or otherwise, somehow spoiling the system is a complete strawman. The peril of it does not exist.
-
No, the thing you're missing is how more and more limitations are placed on the many, due to the actions of a few.
Completely irrelevant to what we were talking about, unless you're suggesting border security is important to keeping people out of flashfloods. So, back to my point:...
No, let's go back to the attempt at twisting my point. I'm not "suggesting" anything, much less that unfathonable tangent. I'm indicating that many of the laws we have that effect most, if not all of us, are brought about by the acts of a few. In this case, militant Islamic terrorists
How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? It's pretty much the same thing. You have no border protection, so bad people with intentions of harming others can come right in to where you live with no one to stop them.
Outside of course that they're here legally, while attempting to perform illegal acts. I hope you don't mind the fact I can differentiate between the 2
How can you be so ignorant of the obvious need for closing off all state and city borders within the United States? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but it makes my point.
Not quite, unless you're trying to make a ludicrous point, than yea, ok
Point being, our borders are the 1st line of defense against foreign enemies. The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.
Your state borders are your first line of defense against rapists and pedophiles from other states. The mindset you apply completely abolishes that line of defense.
Actually our 1st line of defense against LEGAL citizens in this country is neighborhood watch. Not surprised though how you continue the effort in blurring the 2 (legal vs illegal immigrants)
my understanding appears to run completely in line with most "reasonable investigations" and think tank studies I've seen
I cannot find a single one that supports your view that taking away the illegal immigrants makes the health care and education systems "much more functional & cost effective." What I find says most of them are paying more in taxes than they ever get out of the system. Which means removing the illegal immigrants would be detrimental and not beneficial to those systems.
We obviously are reading different studies then, since I've come across precisely the opposite. Not combined of course, just studies on each, mostly regarding healthcare, and mostly about how far more money is drained than what they contribute
No one's trying to exclude "people", only ILLEGAL people. A distinct & not-so-subtle difference
As a fictional philosopher once correctly noted, "Peoples is peoples." I'm not exactly sure what the difference between "people" (in quotes) and ILLEGAL people is.
That's easy. ILLEGAL people are those that have not followed our laws, have not followed procedure that legal immigrants have taken, and obviously have no patience to respect our rule of law. "People" are all those here legally, including some who are actually pedophiles and murderers, that you were so incongruently trying to analogize
Seems to me, they're all people.
Technically yes. So are terrorists, so are dictators, so are pedophiles. So?
And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people.
If you're going to start to try to play that blurr game again, you can deal me out. So don't
And one of the major problems with that, as I have mentioned before, is that those illegal immigrants shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
BUT THEY ARE. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they aren't. Just because a murderer may donate to charity, doesn't remove the fact he's a murderer. Fact is, those that have entered this country illegally, are illegally in this country. It is ONLY those I take issue with, as it relates to who comes in and out of this country, not "people" in general, nor those simply from Mexico. ANYONE entering this country, without going thru the legal process of coming into this country, should not be here, plane & simple
They'd take those jobs where the employers are desperate for the lowest waged worker. That's the whole issue here....employers and corporations willing to undercut american workers by paying salaries that only illegal immigrants will jump at.
Um, no. They take the jobs they are willing to do for the pay offered. The same as everyone else.
I think I just said that. And it's ususally lower than any legal American is willing to work for. Yea, I got that
You can't have an underground market in jobs if you don't have an underground market in employees.
Hey, that helps make my point. Start enforcing current immigration laws, start hitting these employers who are willing to shaft both illegal immigrants and Americans, and the underground would dry up significantly
And the vast majority of those illegal immigrats are likely to be renting vs paying property taxes, so there's another big# you can take out of the equation.
I would like to know how you came to that particular conclusion.
Common sense. such low skilled paying jobs, at rates that are often less than minimum wage isn't likely to put one on the path to home ownership. Unless you're like BofA or Western Mutual, ready to put up some outrageous mortgage rates to shaft the illegal immigrant, that much more
The reference is in that they would pay far less in taxes compared to what they'd use in tax payer payed services
Again, this is contrary to all the evidence I have seen.
Then we're obviously seeing different evidence
Again with the "all or nothing" inferrence. The reference was that the 9+million would likely be starting to receive SS benefits just after said system was completely bankrupt.
I inferred nothing. In any case, my point remains the same. A bankrupt "Social Security" system would be a result of the inherently faulty system not be the immigrants. To complain about immigrants, illegal or otherwise, somehow spoiling the system is a complete strawman. The peril of it does not exist.
A) I NEVER was complaining that immigrants, whether legal or illegal was what was spoiling SS, so I'd appreciate if you dropped that attempt. and B) 1 last time, it's simply demonstrating that the #'s will be THAT MUCH EXPONENTIALLY MORE entering the SS & Medicare systems, at a time when they're going, if not already gone bankrupt. Consider it the cherry on top
-
I'm indicating that many of the laws we have that effect most, if not all of us, are brought about by the acts of a few. In this case, militant Islamic terrorists
Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
How about if I said you have no problem with pedophiles, rapists and murderers moving right into your state or city? It's pretty much the same thing. You have no border protection, so bad people with intentions of harming others can come right in to where you live with no one to stop them.
Outside of course that they're here legally, while attempting to perform illegal acts. I hope you don't mind the fact I can differentiate between the 2
In their home state they might be there legally, but you can make their entry into your state illegal by the imposition of laws on interstate travel similar to what we have on international travel. We supposedly need to have these immigration laws to secure the borders to keep out the terrorists and criminals from foreign lands, then why not secure the borders to keep out terrorists and criminals from other states? Isn't that the point of the whole border security thing? If it is a must-have for our national borders, why not for our state borders?
How can you be so ignorant of the obvious need for closing off all state and city borders within the United States? Yes, I am being sarcastic, but it makes my point.
Not quite, unless you're trying to make a ludicrous point, than yea, ok
Why is it ludicrous to suggest that the same laws that apply to international immigration should be applied to interstate immigration? The same issues apply. Keeping out criminals. Protecting the populace. Preventing undue drain on local resources. Then why not the same solution? Conversely, if it is ludicrous to suggest closed state borders and tightly controlled interstate immigration, why then is a closed national border and tightly controlled international immigration insisted to be the necessary solution? If it is ludicrous on the level of interstate travel, then how can it not be proportionately more ludicrous at the level of international travel?
Actually our 1st line of defense against LEGAL citizens in this country is neighborhood watch.
The point isn't whether native born pedophiles or rapists are legal citizens of the U.S. The point is their movement from one state to another is legal. You claimed our first line of defense against foreign enemies is our border. Why is that only true at the national level? Why is that not true at the state level or the city level? It cannot be because the native born criminals are here legally. The only thing needed to make their interstate immigration illegal are the laws that say so. So if we need such laws for the national borders, why not for the state borders?
Not surprised though how you continue the effort in blurring the 2 (legal vs illegal immigrants)
I'm not blurring anything. I'm making a fairly straightforward comparison of international and interstate immigration.
We obviously are reading different studies then, since I've come across precisely the opposite. Not combined of course, just studies on each, mostly regarding healthcare, and mostly about how far more money is drained than what they contribute
And those studies would be...?
ILLEGAL people are those that have not followed our laws, have not followed procedure that legal immigrants have taken, and obviously have no patience to respect our rule of law. "People" are all those here legally, including some who are actually pedophiles and murderers, that you were so incongruently trying to analogize
Okay. I feel I should have a better response, but I'm a little stunned that people not having patience for the decades to gain legal entry to the U.S. are to be excluded from immigration to places with better health care or education but murderers and pedophiles should apparently feel free to go where they wish. Something about that seems incongruous to me.
Seems to me, they're all people.
Technically yes. So are terrorists, so are dictators, so are pedophiles. So?
So if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people (your term), then you're trying to exclude people. But I said that already, didn't I...
And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people.
If you're going to start to try to play that blurr game again, you can deal me out. So don't
Again, I'm not blurring anything. I realize you're saying there is a difference between people here legally and people here illegally. But that distinction is entirely artificial and one with which I happen to disagree. The distinction should not exist.
And if you're trying to exclude ILLEGAL people—and though I know what you meant, I am still a little surprised you put it that way—then you're trying to exclude people. And one of the major problems with that, as I have mentioned before, is that those illegal immigrants shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
BUT THEY ARE. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they aren't. Just because a murderer may donate to charity, doesn't remove the fact he's a murderer. Fact is, those that have entered this country illegally, are illegally in this country.
I did not deny, nor have I denied, that such is the case. Obviously the situation exists. That does not mean that it should.
It is ONLY those I take issue with, as it relates to who comes in and out of this country, not "people" in general, nor those simply from Mexico. ANYONE entering this country, without going thru the legal process of coming into this country, should not be here, plane & simple
I disagree. I don't believe we need an onerous process of legal entry into this country. I don't believe we need to have most, if any, of those laws on the books. The existence of a law is not sufficient to justify its existence. And the existence of a law does not make it right or necessary or good. You believe we need onerous immigration laws? Okay, but I do not. That is a disagreement with the law, not a denial of the law.
Start enforcing current immigration laws, start hitting these employers who are willing to shaft both illegal immigrants and Americans, and the underground would dry up significantly
Kinda like how cracking down on the market for alcohol (enforcement of Prohibition) shrunk the the black market for alcohol? No, I think the more likely result would be the underground market would merely get better at hiding. And it would probably do more harm than good to the people involved and to the legal market.
Common sense. such low skilled paying jobs, at rates that are often less than minimum wage isn't likely to put one on the path to home ownership. Unless you're like BofA or Western Mutual, ready to put up some outrageous mortgage rates to shaft the illegal immigrant, that much more
Oh yes, you're still assuming that immigrants are only going to take low paying jobs. I still haven't seen the evidence for that either.
A) I NEVER was complaining that immigrants, whether legal or illegal was what was spoiling SS, so I'd appreciate if you dropped that attempt.
I could have sworn that was you explaining how the studies you've seen show that the immigrants are going to drain more than they contribute...
and B) 1 last time, it's simply demonstrating that the #'s will be THAT MUCH EXPONENTIALLY MORE entering the SS & Medicare systems, at a time when they're going, if not already gone bankrupt. Consider it the cherry on top
Then maybe we should focus on getting out of the flawed systems now rather than waiting for them to go bankrupt. And before you tell me how we can't do that, I submit that if all of the verbiage, effort, time and money being spent on arguing for immigration control was instead spent on campaigning against "Social Security" and Medicare, then some progress, at the very least, toward ending those programs could be made.
-
Why is it ludicrous to suggest that the same laws that apply to international immigration should be applied to interstate immigration? The same issues apply. Keeping out criminals. Protecting the populace. Preventing undue drain on local resources. Then why not the same solution? Conversely, if it is ludicrous to suggest closed state borders and tightly controlled interstate immigration, why then is a closed national border and tightly controlled international immigration insisted to be the necessary solution? If it is ludicrous on the level of interstate travel, then how can it not be proportionately more ludicrous at the level of international travel?"
If a person with a very anti social attitude commits a lot of crimes in Jahilisco then comes to Texas he can start over because no one will know what sort of criminal he is , but he is very likely to remain a criminal .
If the same sort of guy leaves New York his record is more available to the authority's of Texas .
Do you remember the boat lift of Mariel?
-
This is basically the crux of the matter, minus the attempts to distort any of each other's positions
It is ONLY those I take issue with, as it relates to who comes in and out of this country, not "people" in general, nor those simply from Mexico. ANYONE entering this country, without going thru the legal process of coming into this country, should not be here, plane & simple
I disagree. I don't believe we need an onerous process of legal entry into this country. I don't believe we need to have most, if any, of those laws on the books. The existence of a law is not sufficient to justify its existence. And the existence of a law does not make it right or necessary or good. You believe we need onerous immigration laws? Okay, but I do not.
And I've given you my reasons for what you claim as "oneruos", and the need for orderly immgration, minus the distortion efforts, and so we agree to disagree
-
Why is it ludicrous to suggest that the same laws that apply to international immigration should be applied to interstate immigration? The same issues apply. Keeping out criminals. Protecting the populace. Preventing undue drain on local resources. Then why not the same solution? Conversely, if it is ludicrous to suggest closed state borders and tightly controlled interstate immigration, why then is a closed national border and tightly controlled international immigration insisted to be the necessary solution? If it is ludicrous on the level of interstate travel, then how can it not be proportionately more ludicrous at the level of international travel?"
If a person with a very anti social attitude commits a lot of crimes in Jahilisco then comes to Texas he can start over because no one will know what sort of criminal he is , but he is very likely to remain a criminal .
If the same sort of guy leaves New York his record is more available to the authority's of Texas .
Do you remember the boat lift of Mariel?
Mexico is a poor country but hey do have criminal records especially from major cities.
I do agree with you though that it iS the Cubans that came to the US that are the real Latino
criminals. Just look at the thugs in FL that attempted to kidnapp Elian from his father.
-
If a person with a very anti social attitude commits a lot of crimes in Jahilisco then comes to Texas he can start over because no one will know what sort of criminal he is , but he is very likely to remain a criminal .
If the same sort of guy leaves New York his record is more available to the authority's of Texas .
Very likely. So?
-
Very likely. So?
======================
So this means that an undocumented immigrant criminal will have an advantage over local criminals. We really don't need more criminals in the US and hardly need to be importing them.
The US, like any prosperous country, cannot allow unrestricted, unsupervised immigration. If we were to do this, we would easily have 100 million Chinese, Filipinos, Moldavians, Nigerians and citizens of whatever impoverished nation wished to come here here within a year or so.
It is ridiculous to say that our schools, healthcare and social security systems are already so bad that unrestricted immigration will not make it worse. I have yet to contract a disease, infection, or symptom that my doctor has been unable to alleviate. I was educated mostly in the US and have never been unemployed in over 40 years. No one has failed to collect a Social Security check to which he or she was not entitled since the system began. There are flawsa in the systems, but they work fairly well most of the time.
On the other hand if we were to just open the borders to whomever wished to come, all our systems would be stressed and many would cease to work at all.
Social Security will only pay out to non citizens what they paid in, by the way.
There are thousands of aged Cubans here in Miami who have NEVER held any job in the US, and live of SSI, which is paid for by the government. They may be someone's beloved grandparents, but we certainly cannot afford to have many more of them, whether they are from Cuba or wherever.
The Senate Immigration Bill is realistic and the best that has come along for decades. I certainly hope it is passed.
-
I think XO has a point. You just can't realistically expect that an open border wouldn't create a lot of economic disruption in the job market. The wealthy, self-supporting Mexicans aren't the ones who will flock in. The poor will, and they'll ultimately create a huge drain on the health-care and educational systems, as well as on roads, police, sanitation, etc. Not because they are Mexicans but just because they are human beings. I just don't believe that their tax-paying contributions will come anywhere near making up the difference, certainly not in the short term. I don't know of any economic study that indicates otherwise.
However, I think that there are ways to cope with the influx, which appears to be unstoppable in any event. One is to cut the enormous waste of fiscal resources that is going into the military and the Middle East - - the cost of the Iraqi War and the annual subsidies to Egypt and Israel for starters. Secondly is to begin to seriously tax the rich - - they have obscenely more than any human being could seriously require for thousands of lifetimes and the time is long past due when this imbalance should be rectified.
The benefits of the influx are a bigger population. Ever see the ads that say "Our people are our most important asset?" I believe in people! I think they're a great asset. Anyone who doubts this should look at China. Wouldn't you like to have an internal market of that size? A labour pool of that size? Where's the downside?
People who live in fear of their own shadow see "criminals!" and worse yet, "terrorists!" in every foreign face. I would say, the U.S.A. already has one of the highest violent crime rates in the industrialized world. The contributions that the Mexicans can make to this problem shouldn't be significant. Besides, wouldn't a lot of Mexican criminals want to stay home, where they can bribe the cops, judges and jailers, terrorize the citizens and generally lead a much more comfortable life than they would enjoy under American law enforcement? And terrorists? Give me a break, please. They are already here and if they're not, they know how to get here. Getting in is probably the easiest part of their job, so don't rely on immigration as a front line of protection from terrorism. I'd concentrate more on airport and building security.
-
People who live in fear of their own shadow see "criminals!" and worse yet, "terrorists!" in every foreign face. ...
Wrong, but nice hyperbole. Distinct difference in recognizing a potential threat & where it may come from to thinking anyone not from America is a Criminal and/or a Terrorist ::)
-
So this means that an undocumented immigrant criminal will have an advantage over local criminals.
Does it? In what way?
We really don't need more criminals in the US and hardly need to be importing them.
I was not aware we were shipping them in. Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals. But I find interesting how some people use the "importing criminals" argument. It is an argument of fear for which many imagined scenarios can be created, but for which there is little evidence. Yes, sometimes immigrants commit crimes. That does not mean they have an advantage, or that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than the rest of us or that we should seek to punish all immigrants from other countries. We do not, after all, punish all people from New York or Washington, D.C., or some other perceived high crime area simply because some them are criminals. Seems to me the "importing criminals" argument is xenophobic at best.
The US, like any prosperous country, cannot allow unrestricted, unsupervised immigration. If we were to do this, we would easily have 100 million Chinese, Filipinos, Moldavians, Nigerians and citizens of whatever impoverished nation wished to come here here within a year or so.
And there is more xenophobia. You say we cannot allow open immigration because poor people from other countries might actually come here. Ooggidy booggidy BOO! Okay, so 100 million poor people come here. Why do they come? Historically they come to make a better life here or at least make money here that the cannot make back home so that they can send the money home and make a better life there. Either way, they are going to contribute their efforts and skills to my society while they are here. I see no reason to be opposed to that.
I should add here that I do not fully understand how people who argue against the greed of capitalism, who make accusations that people who do not want to support government social programs are callous people who want to horde their money, can argue against poor people being allowed to immigrate to America. Arguing that immigration cannot be left unrestricted because poor people will come seems the height of "I've got mine so screw you." It is certainly not a compassionate attitude toward those in need.
It is ridiculous to say that our schools, healthcare and social security systems are already so bad that unrestricted immigration will not make it worse.
That isn't what I said.
There are flawsa in the systems, but they work fairly well most of the time.
On the other hand if we were to just open the borders to whomever wished to come, all our systems would be stressed and many would cease to work at all.
Based upon what evidence do you base that conclusion? But let's say you're right. As I have said before, this is a fault of the systems, not of the people. And using the systems as an excuse to promote fear of foreigners is a crutch. I also find it ironic that these systems that we supposedly must have in this country because we must help the poor are somehow supposedly in danger of helping too many poor. Even more ironic is that people who support the programs because the programs supposedly exist to help the poor are not blaming the system for that danger, but rather the poor for wanting to have some help. Apparently only American poor people are worthy of compassion.
Of course, that calls into question whether the programs have anything to do with compassion for the poor and needy. Personally I think they have more to do with giving people an excuse to not have to do anything. The programs exist less to help the poor and more to assuage the consciences of the people who don't want to have to actually do anything to help the poor. Sure they say it's about helping the poor, but watch how they react to the idea of poor people immigrating to the U.S. They want to stop it. They argue not for helping the poor, but for saving the programs.
-
Okay, so 100 million poor people come here. Why do they come? Historically they come to make a better life here or at least make money here that the cannot make back home so that they can send the money home and make a better life there. Either way, they are going to contribute their efforts and skills to my society while they are here. I see no reason to be opposed to that.
Nor do I, personally. Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain
-
You just can't realistically expect that an open border wouldn't create a lot of economic disruption in the job market.
Moving from a closed or mostly closed border to an open border might cause a change in the job market, but the market would adapt.
The poor will, and they'll ultimately create a huge drain on the health-care and educational systems, as well as on roads, police, sanitation, etc. Not because they are Mexicans but just because they are human beings. I just don't believe that their tax-paying contributions will come anywhere near making up the difference, certainly not in the short term. I don't know of any economic study that indicates otherwise.
Where are all these economic studies that show how the poor immigrants are not going to pay enough in taxes to "contribute" enough to all these programs? For that matter, isn't that the point of government run social programs, to help people in the short term? Seems incongruous to say we must have those programs for the sake of the poor, but we've got to keep the poor away from them.
However, I think that there are ways to cope with the influx, which appears to be unstoppable in any event. One is to cut the enormous waste of fiscal resources that is going into the military and the Middle East - - the cost of the Iraqi War and the annual subsidies to Egypt and Israel for starters. Secondly is to begin to seriously tax the rich - - they have obscenely more than any human being could seriously require for thousands of lifetimes and the time is long past due when this imbalance should be rectified.
Or, we could scrap the programs that are themselves a drain on society.
The benefits of the influx are a bigger population. Ever see the ads that say "Our people are our most important asset?" I believe in people! I think they're a great asset. Anyone who doubts this should look at China. Wouldn't you like to have an internal market of that size? A labour pool of that size? Where's the downside?
I'm glad someone else here sees that.
-
Okay, so 100 million poor people come here. Why do they come? Historically they come to make a better life here or at least make money here that the cannot make back home so that they can send the money home and make a better life there. Either way, they are going to contribute their efforts and skills to my society while they are here. I see no reason to be opposed to that.
Nor do I, personally. Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain
So if your inamorato , the Busidiot, gives 12 million amnesty and makes it legal for another 400000 or so per year to be legal, no problema?
-
Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain
I'm all for having them immigrate legally. But we need to make that process considerably easier, not harder.
-
<<Distinct difference in recognizing a potential threat & where it may come from to thinking anyone not from America is a Criminal and/or a Terrorist >>
And another distinct difference between taking a statement literally and recognizing an obvious exaggeration made to make a point. The point being in this case that terrorists are always going to infiltrate - - it's the easiest part of their job, the hardest part being to to blow things up that cause mega-deaths. To sacrifice the advantages of easy mass immigration for the illusory benefits of "stopping terrorism" would be like taking the kids' college fund and blowing it all on a witch doctor's magic charm to protect them from all illness and injury.
-
Just have them do it legally, like the rest of those coming here legally, and we'd be right as rain
I'm all for having them immigrate legally. But we need to make that process considerably easier, not harder.
Where as I vote to enforce the current legal requirements, vs making anything easier or harder
-
<<Distinct difference in recognizing a potential threat & where it may come from to thinking anyone not from America is a Criminal and/or a Terrorist >>
And another distinct difference between taking a statement literally and recognizing an obvious exaggeration made to make a point.
Frequent insidious use of hyperbole on your part, rarely makes a point, I'm afraid
-
<<Frequent insidious use of hyperbole on your part, rarely makes a point, I'm afraid>>
That's your problem. You don't see what you don't want to see.
-
<<Frequent insidious use of hyperbole on your part, rarely makes a point, I'm afraid>>
That's your problem. You don't see what you don't want to see.
LOL....you're right there. I'll endeavor to see reality vs hyperbole
-
<<LOL....you're right there. I'll endeavor to see reality vs hyperbole>>
Very funny. Let me know when you finally see reality. Tell the rest of the extreme right what it looks like, too.
-
<<LOL....you're right there. I'll endeavor to see reality vs hyperbole>>
Very funny. Let me know when you finally see reality.
Been there, done that.
-
<<Been there, done that. >>
What, recognized reality? When was the last time, Grade Ten?
-
<<Been there, done that. >>
What, recognized reality? When was the last time, Grade Ten?
As it relates to this thread alone, that'd be May 27, 2007, @ 10:09:11 PM
-
We really don't need more criminals in the US and hardly need to be importing them.
I was not aware we were shipping them in. Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals.
Sometimes it does , it would be fair if we could export the same number and quality of criminals , but we don't seem to , anyone got the data on how many renegades go forth from here and pester the rest of the world?
During the Mariel Boat lift Castro solved his hemmorage of people problem by emptying his prisons of violent offenders and giveing them leave , this really hurt because it amounted to a goodly number of bad actors. Carter was forced to negotiate some limits on that.
It is Criminals that make Government seem nessacery , whether the petty sort that you want the local deputy to lock up till they are repentant even if only overnight or the large scale raiders and ruiners that have to be resisted by maximum governmental efforts. If human nature did not make crime inevitable , who would want to have any government at all?
-
Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals.
Sometimes it does
No. It does not. I think perhaps you are confused about the meaning of the word 'import'. Allowing open immigration does not make people come here. They are not forcibly brought in by us. Thus they are not imported.
If human nature did not make crime inevitable , who would want to have any government at all?
The people who want to control others for the others' supposed own good?
Of course the problem with your argument is that government does not stop crime. For one, it cannot. For another, it essentially legitimizes for itself what would be a crime for anyone else. And for still yet another, it entrenches crime through onerous laws meant to control society. Which raises the question, if human nature makes crime inevitable, then why would anyone expect a government to stop it?
-
Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals.
Sometimes it does
No. It does not. I think perhaps you are confused about the meaning of the word 'import'. Allowing open immigration does not make people come here. They are not forcibly brought in by us. Thus they are not imported.
It does too. A criminal ought to be incarcerated near his crime , have you any idea how many of these guys we are feeding ?
If human nature did not make crime inevitable , who would want to have any government at all?
The people who want to control others for the others' supposed own good?
Of course the problem with your argument is that government does not stop crime. For one, it cannot. For another, it essentially legitimizes for itself what would be a crime for anyone else. And for still yet another, it entrenches crime through onerous laws meant to control society. Which raises the question, if human nature makes crime inevitable, then why would anyone expect a government to stop it?
Government is a tool of the people , it can be usefull to help cope with such problems , even as it causes othr problems nearly as bad.
There were people before there was government , why do you think we started putting up with the imposition?
-
Government is a tool of the people
Which people?
There were people before there was government , why do you think we started putting up with the imposition?
Because the strong beat up the weak?
-
Government is a tool of the people
Which people?
The ones that use Government as a tool.
There were people before there was government , why do you think we started putting up with the imposition?
Because the strong beat up the weak?
That is true , protection is the origional promise government makes . So if the people feel threatened by something , what is the government to do? Even if the fear s unfounded the government must respond somehow.
-
That is true , protection is the origional promise government makes .
Oddly enough, it is also the original promise that gangs and mafias make. I wonder if that means something.
So if the people feel threatened by something , what is the government to do? Even if the fear s unfounded the government must respond somehow.
Indeed. But propping up a fear hardly seems like the correct response. And bad decisions based in fear seem also unlikely to be the appropriate solution. But then it's never about finding the correct solution, is it? It's always about Doing Something Now. Solve the problem now. No long-term solutions allowed. Solve it now. Do it now. If it doesn't work out, we can always criticize those in the government later for not spending enough or not being tough enough or not being smart enough or, if all else fails, for being too short-sighted. But by god, fix it now.
So if the people feel threatened, what is the government to do? Like a good authority figure, it's supposed to make the boogyman go away. Only it can't because the boogyman exists more in our minds than in reality. And when even if the government can deal with one threat, we will find another. And another. We need to grow up and face our own fears.
-
That is true , protection is the origional promise government makes .
Oddly enough, it is also the original promise that gangs and mafias make. I wonder if that means something.
I would not be at all surprised if the early forms of government were entirely the same as gangs , this seems to be a feature of human nature.
So if the people feel threatened by something , what is the government to do? Even if the fear s unfounded the government must respond somehow.
Indeed. But propping up a fear hardly seems like the correct response. And bad decisions based in fear seem also unlikely to be the appropriate solution. But then it's never about finding the correct solution, is it? It's always about Doing Something Now. Solve the problem now. No long-term solutions allowed. Solve it now. Do it now. If it doesn't work out, we can always criticize those in the government later for not spending enough or not being tough enough or not being smart enough or, if all else fails, for being too short-sighted. But by god, fix it now.
So if the people feel threatened, what is the government to do? Like a good authority figure, it's supposed to make the boogyman go away. Only it can't because the boogyman exists more in our minds than in reality. And when even if the government can deal with one threat, we will find another. And another. We need to grow up and face our own fears.
All of that is fair to say , but in practical terms there is no way to elemiate the political vaue of bogeymen other than the sort of education that will never be common.
-
All of that is fair to say , but in practical terms there is no way to elemiate the political vaue of bogeymen other than the sort of education that will never be common.
Possibly. But it doesn't hurt to try.
-
All of that is fair to say , but in practical terms there is no way to elemiate the political vaue of bogeymen other than the sort of education that will never be common.
Possibly. But it doesn't hurt to try.
I expect it helps a lot to try , it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
I really ought to commend you on your willingness to discuss such a knotty problem poltely and at such length, I consider this to be a sort of generosity.
But be aware that perfection is the enemy of good , can you comproise and support something that is a step in the right direction even if a small one?
-
But be aware that perfection is the enemy of good , can you comproise and support something that is a step in the right direction even if a small one?
That depends on whether I have some reasonable expectation that further steps will continue to be taken. A single step in the right direction followed by a dozen in wrong directions is not the sort of compromise that is going to help us. I'm not a big fan of compromise just to say something got done. Sometimes going only part of the way towards a goal can be as bad as doing nothing at all. A house is built gradually, step by step. But generally one doesn't build a corner of a house and promise to get back to the rest sometime in the future. The family that needs that house for shelter ends up still without a shelter. I'm not saying I expect or want dramatic changes overnight. Gradual progress in the correct direction is agreeable to me, so long as we commit to continue until we're done.
-
But be aware that perfection is the enemy of good , can you comproise and support something that is a step in the right direction even if a small one?
That depends on whether I have some reasonable expectation that further steps will continue to be taken. A single step in the right direction followed by a dozen in wrong directions is not the sort of compromise that is going to help us. I'm not a big fan of compromise just to say something got done. Sometimes going only part of the way towards a goal can be as bad as doing nothing at all. A house is built gradually, step by step. But generally one doesn't build a corner of a house and promise to get back to the rest sometime in the future. The family that needs that house for shelter ends up still without a shelter. I'm not saying I expect or want dramatic changes overnight. Gradual progress in the correct direction is agreeable to me, so long as we commit to continue until we're done.
Who and what, availible now, does this make you support?
-
Certainly not the Republican Party or the Democrat Party. I'll vote for Ron Paul, if he is on the ballot come election time, but there is not one of the other Republican candidates that I really like as candidates. And so far the Democratic candidates leave me nonplussed. I support Libertarian Party more on the local and state level than the national level. I might support the national LP more if they ever got serious about raising money and trying to influence public opinion.
-
You've seriously got me looking at Paul now, Prince as a consdered candidate for President. I'll do more research on him, to form a more educated choice
-
Good.