|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 06 2014 07:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).
In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”
The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.
“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.
"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added. Source yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too? If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity. No it wouldnt, mindless fanatics using a book written by bronze age nomads to discriminate against fellow Americans who want to defend the Republic = bad. Americans who want to defend the American Republic but dont want swear to an imaginary being invented by bronze age nomads = good. I know Evangelicals fundamentally hate America for its freedoms, and they have the right to do so but they do not have the right to use their hate to undermine its very essence. Exactly. You ought to exercise a little more forethought as a pot before calling the kettle black. You have deep-seated antagonism for a group of religions. You will not permit or accept people of this faith defending the country because of your intolerance. Religious liberty works both ways, and more and more I see talk about supporting liberties, but action only when its religious liberty used in ways you already agree with. It's bigoted and prejudiced.
On September 06 2014 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).
In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”
The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.
“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.
"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added. Source yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too? If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity. Do gays turn the army gay? Do atheists try to teach people atheism and impose their values on other people? Some gays advocate some pretty inane policies, but group identity itself has no bearing. Many atheists do ridicule and attempt to persuade others from faith and belief. What exactly you mean by 'imposing values' may apply broadly to both atheists and theists, or to neither. Evangelical Christians are just as able and worthy as any other for the armed forces. Nothing intrinsic to their being separates them from their godless or other-faith colleagues in work performance.
|
On September 06 2014 08:51 Danglars wrote:
Some gays advocate some pretty inane policies, but group identity itself has no bearing. Many atheists do ridicule and attempt to persuade others from faith and belief. What exactly you mean by 'imposing values' may apply broadly to both atheists and theists, or to neither. Evangelical Christians are just as able and worthy as any other for the armed forces. Nothing intrinsic to their being separates them from their godless or other-faith colleagues in work performance.
There is nothing intrinsic about atheism. Practically it only means "please leave me alone with your religious belief". If I'm not mistaken the American constitution guarantees people freedom of religion, which also means that you're free to not believe anything at all. If people lose their job because of their non-belief, how is that constitutional?
|
On September 06 2014 08:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 07:00 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).
In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”
The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.
“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.
"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added. Source yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too? If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity. No it wouldnt, mindless fanatics using a book written by bronze age nomads to discriminate against fellow Americans who want to defend the Republic = bad. Americans who want to defend the American Republic but dont want swear to an imaginary being invented by bronze age nomads = good. I know Evangelicals fundamentally hate America for its freedoms, and they have the right to do so but they do not have the right to use their hate to undermine its very essence. Exactly. You ought to exercise a little more forethought as a pot before calling the kettle black. You have deep-seated antagonism for a group of religions. You will not permit or accept people of this faith defending the country because of your intolerance. Religious liberty works both ways, and more and more I see talk about supporting liberties, but action only when its religious liberty used in ways you already agree with. It's bigoted and prejudiced.
Yes, I have a deep seated antagonism to a group who actively undermines American military forces by excluding people for the simple act of existing. The atheist wasnt demanding that all evangelicals are stopped from swearing to God or on the bible, he is demand his right not to.
|
On September 06 2014 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 08:51 Danglars wrote:
Some gays advocate some pretty inane policies, but group identity itself has no bearing. Many atheists do ridicule and attempt to persuade others from faith and belief. What exactly you mean by 'imposing values' may apply broadly to both atheists and theists, or to neither. Evangelical Christians are just as able and worthy as any other for the armed forces. Nothing intrinsic to their being separates them from their godless or other-faith colleagues in work performance. There is nothing intrinsic about atheism. Practically it only means "please leave me alone with your religious belief". If I'm not mistaken the American constitution guarantees people freedom of religion, which also means that you're free to not believe anything at all. If people lose their job because of their non-belief, how is that constitutional? If you did grasp what I quoted, it's the practice and not an intrinsic nature. I wonder if you have a point in comparing the two faiths. I call attention to the allegation that Christians had "penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly," whatever that means. It is strange.
On September 06 2014 09:08 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 08:51 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 07:00 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).
In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”
The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.
“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.
"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added. Source yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too? If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity. No it wouldnt, mindless fanatics using a book written by bronze age nomads to discriminate against fellow Americans who want to defend the Republic = bad. Americans who want to defend the American Republic but dont want swear to an imaginary being invented by bronze age nomads = good. I know Evangelicals fundamentally hate America for its freedoms, and they have the right to do so but they do not have the right to use their hate to undermine its very essence. Exactly. You ought to exercise a little more forethought as a pot before calling the kettle black. You have deep-seated antagonism for a group of religions. You will not permit or accept people of this faith defending the country because of your intolerance. Religious liberty works both ways, and more and more I see talk about supporting liberties, but action only when its religious liberty used in ways you already agree with. It's bigoted and prejudiced. Yes, I have a deep seated antagonism to a group who actively undermines American military forces by excluding people for the simple act of existing. The atheist wasnt demanding that all evangelicals are stopped from swearing to God or on the bible, he is demand his right not to. You very rapidly pounced on the faith of the entire segment. You say they're "mindless fanatics," they discriminate, they "swear to an imagining being" that was "invented by bronze age nomads." Where in this to you tolerate people of other faiths in the Air Force? You seem unable to separate individuals the may advocate for their own pet projects, and your intense hatred for the group identity.
I know Evangelicals fundamentally hate America for its freedoms, You cannot give any member the freedom to act independently of the stereotypes you've formed of them. Step back from spewing the hate the second someone dares to question your belief in a grand evangelical conspiracy.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 16:18 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:35 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). Like families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me  As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. To bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I? For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh? I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment. So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go. And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea. But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime. You don't have to be a card carrying racist or racist all the time to say something racist but that wasn't really my point. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point. My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications) So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)
So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. It was so racist that unions (at least used to) believe it. I saw nothing racist in what I said. It's not like I said "those Mexicans are so useless, all they're good for is picking food or weeds!" That would be racist, stupid, and contrary to my own experiences and interactions. A) I've made at least 3 corrections through my hundreds of posts here. I don't object. I clarified and corrected what I was saying like TWO (three?) posts after the initial one. B) You've also used extreme language before, as well. (If I recall, it was something about how most conservatives [or was it creationists] had tortured childhoods). Let's not pretend that these things don't happen. What annoys me is the fact that you are still talking about it. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). I agree. Two wrongs make a right. Again, the rich person part wasn't the point. Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). Lawlessness it just one way to ruin a state. It is by no means an exclusive way. Perhaps you should take off your race/privileged colored glasses and not try to extract something I didn't say from what I did. The topic was, from Danglars very first post, about illegal immigration. I was reacting to that. It seems to me that you just liked "close the backdoor, open the front door" because it sounded really nice and tidy. So far all you've done is make an extra effort to argue for having both doors open. What did you think closing the backdoor meant, if it didn't mean stopping illegal immigration? Did you suppose he was concerned about feeling a draft? But I have work in the morning, so I'm afraid this is it. I don't like cheats- tax cheats, political cheats, pro-gamer cheats, etc. Moreover, there could be a compelling economic reason to oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was racist, it's extremity was irrelevant. You might not of meant to say something racist but you did (We all do it, just we don't all feel remorse) . Perhaps racially insensitive is a more palatable term for you though. But it was, what it was, when you said it, and it would of been if unions or anyone else said it. As I said I was just noting it so you don't ever say it again. I stand by my characterization and supported it when it was challenged (show don't tell). People could choose whether they agreed or not (though my argument was pretty definition based so the argument is almost exclusively semantic). Your statement in contrast had no linguistic nuance (beyond correction). As far as it belongs here, the more cult like sects I think definitely deserve state interference under child protection laws but we aren't there as a country yet. I was under the impression conservatives felt like states were pretty helpless to do anything to create or enforce laws that would significantly change immigration itself. So except for the weird "they come here for our license's" conspiracy theory I haven't really seen the 'lawlessness' (seriously?) regarding the parts of immigration state officials actually control? Though I guess we do agree about the people flouting the law by employing the illegal immigrants (except I would rather see their employees and practices come out into the open rather than try to prosecute them all). For instance educating, feeding, and documenting (license/ID cards) children and adults that are here (that can not be practically removed [like they have American children with no legal guardian resident) makes a hell of a lot more sense than just leaving children with parents who have no way to provide for them or forcing their parents to leave to a crappier country. There are more crappy Americans than there are crappy immigrants legal or illegal, (just from shear numbers) so I figure if we can make room and provide for crappy Americans we can absorb some crappy immigrants (though we should try to screen them out) in order to give as many as possible of the good ones a fair shot at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So while I wish that every immigrant came here legally, to perpetuate the falsehood that the ones that are here are a burden to great to bare or that the immigrants themselves are the problem does everyone a disservice. The implicit suggestion in your rhetoric (whether you realize it or not) is for some form of mass deportation also. Unless of course all the ones that are contributing to 'ruining California' you would like to give a path to citizenship? I don't have a problem with closing the back door, the problem basically boils down to republicans not trusting the democrats would close the backdoor and democrats not trusting republicans would open the front. Of course there was a compromise, but those don't happen in the house very often so we sit here doing nothing for who knows how many years... I guess republicans think if they can win the senate they can pass something more like the house. If not I don't know how much longer they will be able to hold out. I didn't extract anything from your statement that wasn't there. It's talking about issues in isolation that is one of the most common pettifogging techniques for the rhetoric you used. You start by saying they ruined it and don't pay anything. If that goes unchallenged it never gets corrected (plenty in the tea party will just say ' nuh uh' instead of acknowledging such a statement is patently false, misleading, and tainted with racism). Then from there one weasels around until we get back to "well I'm against them all and they all ruin it, but we are talking about the one's that don't belong here, so let's not address the much larger offenders who contribute far more to the problem. But don't dare suggest the hyper focus on the immigrant's role has any racial animosity to it".
I had a response ready, but realized just how useless it was. I shouldn't have to explain the same thing a 3rd or 4th time.
So let's pull a GreenHorizons here:
A) what do you support that counts as closing the backdoor
and
B) Do you think Caesar Chavez was a self-hating Mexican-American? Since apparently the belief that illegal immigration could harm the regular, low wage citizen/union worker is a racist view.
|
On September 06 2014 09:23 Danglars wrote:
You very rapidly pounced on the faith of the entire segment. You say they're "mindless fanatics," they discriminate, they "swear to an imagining being" that was "invented by bronze age nomads." Where in this to you tolerate people of other faiths in the Air Force?
In that any private belief can be private, but when you exclude veterans from serving because they wont swear on a specific you are entering the public sphere
A 2010 survey found 41 percent of non-Christian cadets faced unwanted proselytizing, even as the religious majority felt that their freedom of speech was being infringed upon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/air-force-academy-religion-proselytism_n_1678092.html
|
On September 06 2014 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 08:51 Danglars wrote:
Some gays advocate some pretty inane policies, but group identity itself has no bearing. Many atheists do ridicule and attempt to persuade others from faith and belief. What exactly you mean by 'imposing values' may apply broadly to both atheists and theists, or to neither. Evangelical Christians are just as able and worthy as any other for the armed forces. Nothing intrinsic to their being separates them from their godless or other-faith colleagues in work performance. There is nothing intrinsic about atheism. Practically it only means "please leave me alone with your religious belief". If I'm not mistaken the American constitution guarantees people freedom of religion, which also means that you're free to not believe anything at all. If people lose their job because of their non-belief, how is that constitutional?
It's kind of a gray area. The person doesn't have the job because he is refusing to swear an oath to serve, not because he doesn't believe. It really shouldn't be too big of a deal either way, but on one side there's always a lot of pressure for an organization to keep its traditions and culture alive and on the other side there's always people who want to make a big deal out of the small.
My guess is that it gets changed and a lot of eyes roll through the entire process 
|
It's really not just the Air Force. My brother faced a lot of proselytizing and Christianity in the Army, which he didn't care for. Also a fair bit of politics. This is coming from his leaders.
I think it's mostly a generational thing, and will change, I hope. The only reason I think that is because the soldiers I've talked to say as much. But for now, Christianity and political "conservatism" is ingrained in our military institutions.
This is basically leftovers from the Carter-Reagan era.
edit: On the other hand, maybe this isn't going to change, because I have a hunch that the more liberal-minded, skeptical, cynical soldiers tend to leave the military for civilian life, while the religious-minded "true believers" are more likely to stay in military for the cause of it.
|
On September 06 2014 09:40 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 16:18 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:35 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. To bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I? For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh? I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment. So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go. And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea. But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime. You don't have to be a card carrying racist or racist all the time to say something racist but that wasn't really my point. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point. My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications) So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)
So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. It was so racist that unions (at least used to) believe it. I saw nothing racist in what I said. It's not like I said "those Mexicans are so useless, all they're good for is picking food or weeds!" That would be racist, stupid, and contrary to my own experiences and interactions. A) I've made at least 3 corrections through my hundreds of posts here. I don't object. I clarified and corrected what I was saying like TWO (three?) posts after the initial one. B) You've also used extreme language before, as well. (If I recall, it was something about how most conservatives [or was it creationists] had tortured childhoods). Let's not pretend that these things don't happen. What annoys me is the fact that you are still talking about it. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). I agree. Two wrongs make a right. Again, the rich person part wasn't the point. Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). Lawlessness it just one way to ruin a state. It is by no means an exclusive way. Perhaps you should take off your race/privileged colored glasses and not try to extract something I didn't say from what I did. The topic was, from Danglars very first post, about illegal immigration. I was reacting to that. It seems to me that you just liked "close the backdoor, open the front door" because it sounded really nice and tidy. So far all you've done is make an extra effort to argue for having both doors open. What did you think closing the backdoor meant, if it didn't mean stopping illegal immigration? Did you suppose he was concerned about feeling a draft? But I have work in the morning, so I'm afraid this is it. I don't like cheats- tax cheats, political cheats, pro-gamer cheats, etc. Moreover, there could be a compelling economic reason to oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was racist, it's extremity was irrelevant. You might not of meant to say something racist but you did (We all do it, just we don't all feel remorse) . Perhaps racially insensitive is a more palatable term for you though. But it was, what it was, when you said it, and it would of been if unions or anyone else said it. As I said I was just noting it so you don't ever say it again. I stand by my characterization and supported it when it was challenged (show don't tell). People could choose whether they agreed or not (though my argument was pretty definition based so the argument is almost exclusively semantic). Your statement in contrast had no linguistic nuance (beyond correction). As far as it belongs here, the more cult like sects I think definitely deserve state interference under child protection laws but we aren't there as a country yet. I was under the impression conservatives felt like states were pretty helpless to do anything to create or enforce laws that would significantly change immigration itself. So except for the weird "they come here for our license's" conspiracy theory I haven't really seen the 'lawlessness' (seriously?) regarding the parts of immigration state officials actually control? Though I guess we do agree about the people flouting the law by employing the illegal immigrants (except I would rather see their employees and practices come out into the open rather than try to prosecute them all). For instance educating, feeding, and documenting (license/ID cards) children and adults that are here (that can not be practically removed [like they have American children with no legal guardian resident) makes a hell of a lot more sense than just leaving children with parents who have no way to provide for them or forcing their parents to leave to a crappier country. There are more crappy Americans than there are crappy immigrants legal or illegal, (just from shear numbers) so I figure if we can make room and provide for crappy Americans we can absorb some crappy immigrants (though we should try to screen them out) in order to give as many as possible of the good ones a fair shot at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So while I wish that every immigrant came here legally, to perpetuate the falsehood that the ones that are here are a burden to great to bare or that the immigrants themselves are the problem does everyone a disservice. The implicit suggestion in your rhetoric (whether you realize it or not) is for some form of mass deportation also. Unless of course all the ones that are contributing to 'ruining California' you would like to give a path to citizenship? I don't have a problem with closing the back door, the problem basically boils down to republicans not trusting the democrats would close the backdoor and democrats not trusting republicans would open the front. Of course there was a compromise, but those don't happen in the house very often so we sit here doing nothing for who knows how many years... I guess republicans think if they can win the senate they can pass something more like the house. If not I don't know how much longer they will be able to hold out. I didn't extract anything from your statement that wasn't there. It's talking about issues in isolation that is one of the most common pettifogging techniques for the rhetoric you used. You start by saying they ruined it and don't pay anything. If that goes unchallenged it never gets corrected (plenty in the tea party will just say ' nuh uh' instead of acknowledging such a statement is patently false, misleading, and tainted with racism). Then from there one weasels around until we get back to "well I'm against them all and they all ruin it, but we are talking about the one's that don't belong here, so let's not address the much larger offenders who contribute far more to the problem. But don't dare suggest the hyper focus on the immigrant's role has any racial animosity to it". I had a response ready, but realized just how useless it was. I shouldn't have to explain the same thing a 3rd or 4th time. So let's pull a GreenHorizons here: A) what do you support that counts as closing the backdoor and B) Do you think Caesar Chavez was a self-hating Mexican-American? Since apparently the belief that illegal immigration could harm the regular, low wage citizen/union worker is a racist view.
A) Whatever works and is practical when it comes to 'securing the border'. If that's a 40 ft triple fence with an alligator moat and drones patrolling fine, (I just don't think that does much to solve the 'costs' issue with immigration, and would probably one day be used for other reasons). But hey someone shows me the numbers, I'd be willing to look.
Another option (possibly in addition if we really have to do the fence, but I think we could save the money) might be cracking down hard on everyone involved in the US. There would be a notification to get 'registered' which would put people who could prove they have been here from before a compromised date on a compromised path to citizenship/residence. Any undocumented people who did not register would be subject to immediate deportation (with some minor accommodations for extreme circumstances) More importantly any companies who had employed undocumented workers would have an opportunity to 'register' and pay some fines and back taxes (much less then they owe, with payment plans etc to try to prevent bankrupting small businesses). Businesses that did not admit to hiring undocumented workers and/or continued to do so, would be subject to anything up to and including removal of licences, massive fines, and or prison if they were found to have done so.
The same goes with what legal immigration looks like. I just want it to be fair and practical. I don't have a magic number or recipe that I am advocating for but I do think we should help as many as we can help us without harming ourselves (net-net) in the process
B) You seem to be confused on this part.
You said:
there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc...
That was the racist part in particular. (Again this was a tertiary point at best)
Bigoted, racist, racially insensitive, pick your term doesn't really matter. The point is that it is blatantly false and misleading, the overtones of racism were just icing from a disgusting rhetorical cake.
|
from United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
so hard to grasp!!
|
On September 06 2014 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 09:40 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 16:18 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:35 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. To bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I? For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh? I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment. So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go. And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea. But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime. You don't have to be a card carrying racist or racist all the time to say something racist but that wasn't really my point. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point. My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications) So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)
So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. It was so racist that unions (at least used to) believe it. I saw nothing racist in what I said. It's not like I said "those Mexicans are so useless, all they're good for is picking food or weeds!" That would be racist, stupid, and contrary to my own experiences and interactions. A) I've made at least 3 corrections through my hundreds of posts here. I don't object. I clarified and corrected what I was saying like TWO (three?) posts after the initial one. B) You've also used extreme language before, as well. (If I recall, it was something about how most conservatives [or was it creationists] had tortured childhoods). Let's not pretend that these things don't happen. What annoys me is the fact that you are still talking about it. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). I agree. Two wrongs make a right. Again, the rich person part wasn't the point. Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). Lawlessness it just one way to ruin a state. It is by no means an exclusive way. Perhaps you should take off your race/privileged colored glasses and not try to extract something I didn't say from what I did. The topic was, from Danglars very first post, about illegal immigration. I was reacting to that. It seems to me that you just liked "close the backdoor, open the front door" because it sounded really nice and tidy. So far all you've done is make an extra effort to argue for having both doors open. What did you think closing the backdoor meant, if it didn't mean stopping illegal immigration? Did you suppose he was concerned about feeling a draft? But I have work in the morning, so I'm afraid this is it. I don't like cheats- tax cheats, political cheats, pro-gamer cheats, etc. Moreover, there could be a compelling economic reason to oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was racist, it's extremity was irrelevant. You might not of meant to say something racist but you did (We all do it, just we don't all feel remorse) . Perhaps racially insensitive is a more palatable term for you though. But it was, what it was, when you said it, and it would of been if unions or anyone else said it. As I said I was just noting it so you don't ever say it again. I stand by my characterization and supported it when it was challenged (show don't tell). People could choose whether they agreed or not (though my argument was pretty definition based so the argument is almost exclusively semantic). Your statement in contrast had no linguistic nuance (beyond correction). As far as it belongs here, the more cult like sects I think definitely deserve state interference under child protection laws but we aren't there as a country yet. I was under the impression conservatives felt like states were pretty helpless to do anything to create or enforce laws that would significantly change immigration itself. So except for the weird "they come here for our license's" conspiracy theory I haven't really seen the 'lawlessness' (seriously?) regarding the parts of immigration state officials actually control? Though I guess we do agree about the people flouting the law by employing the illegal immigrants (except I would rather see their employees and practices come out into the open rather than try to prosecute them all). For instance educating, feeding, and documenting (license/ID cards) children and adults that are here (that can not be practically removed [like they have American children with no legal guardian resident) makes a hell of a lot more sense than just leaving children with parents who have no way to provide for them or forcing their parents to leave to a crappier country. There are more crappy Americans than there are crappy immigrants legal or illegal, (just from shear numbers) so I figure if we can make room and provide for crappy Americans we can absorb some crappy immigrants (though we should try to screen them out) in order to give as many as possible of the good ones a fair shot at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So while I wish that every immigrant came here legally, to perpetuate the falsehood that the ones that are here are a burden to great to bare or that the immigrants themselves are the problem does everyone a disservice. The implicit suggestion in your rhetoric (whether you realize it or not) is for some form of mass deportation also. Unless of course all the ones that are contributing to 'ruining California' you would like to give a path to citizenship? I don't have a problem with closing the back door, the problem basically boils down to republicans not trusting the democrats would close the backdoor and democrats not trusting republicans would open the front. Of course there was a compromise, but those don't happen in the house very often so we sit here doing nothing for who knows how many years... I guess republicans think if they can win the senate they can pass something more like the house. If not I don't know how much longer they will be able to hold out. I didn't extract anything from your statement that wasn't there. It's talking about issues in isolation that is one of the most common pettifogging techniques for the rhetoric you used. You start by saying they ruined it and don't pay anything. If that goes unchallenged it never gets corrected (plenty in the tea party will just say ' nuh uh' instead of acknowledging such a statement is patently false, misleading, and tainted with racism). Then from there one weasels around until we get back to "well I'm against them all and they all ruin it, but we are talking about the one's that don't belong here, so let's not address the much larger offenders who contribute far more to the problem. But don't dare suggest the hyper focus on the immigrant's role has any racial animosity to it". I had a response ready, but realized just how useless it was. I shouldn't have to explain the same thing a 3rd or 4th time. So let's pull a GreenHorizons here: A) what do you support that counts as closing the backdoor and B) Do you think Caesar Chavez was a self-hating Mexican-American? Since apparently the belief that illegal immigration could harm the regular, low wage citizen/union worker is a racist view. A) Whatever works and is practical when it comes to 'securing the border'. If that's a 40 ft triple fence with an alligator moat and drones patrolling fine, (I just don't think that does much to solve the 'costs' issue with immigration, and would probably one day be used for other reasons). But hey someone shows me the numbers, I'd be willing to look. Another option (possibly in addition if we really have to do the fence, but I think we could save the money) might be cracking down hard on everyone involved in the US. There would be a notification to get 'registered' which would put people who could prove they have been here from before a compromised date on a compromised path to citizenship/residence. Any undocumented people who did not register would be subject to immediate deportation (with some minor accommodations for extreme circumstances) More importantly any companies who had employed undocumented workers would have an opportunity to 'register' and pay some fines and back taxes (much less then they owe, with payment plans etc to try to prevent bankrupting small businesses). Businesses that did not admit to hiring undocumented workers and/or continued to do so, would be subject to anything up to and including removal of licences, massive fines, and or prison if they were found to have done so. The same goes with what legal immigration looks like. I just want it to be fair and practical. I don't have a magic number or recipe that I am advocating for but I do think we should help as many as we can help us without harming ourselves (net-net) in the process B) You seem to be confused on this part. You said: Show nested quote +there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... That was the racist part in particular. (Again this was a tertiary point at best) Bigoted, racist, racially insensitive, pick your term doesn't really matter. The point is that it is blatantly false and misleading, the overtones of racism were just icing from a disgusting rhetorical cake.
+ Show Spoiler +A) those enforcement measures I would also support. Maybe a little stricter, but whatever. Granting licenses is in principle opposed to this, so that's how that's relevant. Besides making the work of an illegal easier, it displays the mindset of the legislature.
B)
i) I was incorrect to say that they "don't pay taxes." They in fact pay less, not none. I even had sales taxes in mind- so that was obvious. But the overall argument seems as a matter of logic to me. The debate was stemming from the contention that the trade-off was worth it. It never had anything to do with race.
It wasn't racist. Don't be stupid. The point had everything do with illegal, non-reported activity. If I was accidentally letting some sort of racist sentiment slip, I wouldn't have used the word "illegal." It was an entirely tax, law, economic based point. How you warp that into a racist statement is incredible. How can I be racist against
a) something that's not even one group. Illegal immigrants come from multiple countries, and can even become illegal by overstaying visas/permits. It's not even a single homogeneous group.
b) for pointing out the entire time, the economic effects of the situation. Or what they would be in my opinion.
c) objecting to everything I see that in my mind is a violation of the law and negatively affects the citizens. I've been harping on that forever, not just when we talk about immigration.
Don't inject race arguments where they didn't exist. Sub40 grasped the point I was making, once I clarified to him.
I'm done. If you are willing to try and inject race into it that hard, I guess you would have no reason to stop now. It was always based on the economic effects. No one inserted race into it until you did. You are the one with race on the mind, not me.
|
On September 06 2014 09:23 Danglars wrote:
I call attention to the allegation that Christians had "penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly," whatever that means. It is strange.
It looks like Christianity, and a pretty radical version of it at that, has not only penetrated the Air Force but pretty much most American institutions and public life.
|
|
|
Scalia's nightmare has come back around.
Thirty-two states that either allow gay marriage or have banned it asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to settle the issue once and for all.
Fifteen states that allow gay marriage, led by Massachusetts, filed a brief asking the justices to take up three cases from Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma and overturn bans. And 17 other states, led by Colorado, that have banned the practice asked the court to hear cases from Utah and Oklahoma to clear up a "morass" of lawsuits, but didn't urge the court to rule one way or another.
The filing came as a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana are unconstitutional. The unanimous decision Thursday criticized the justifications both states gave, several times singling out the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is tradition. There are, the court noted, good and bad traditions.
The experience of Massachusetts — the first state to legalize gay marriage — shows that allowing same-sex couples to wed has only benefited families and strengthened the institution of marriage, said Attorney General Martha Coakley.
"Laws that bar same-sex couples from marrying are discriminatory and unconstitutional," she said. "The time has come for this critical issue to be resolved."
Massachusetts was joined by California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.
Colorado's brief argued that the definition of marriage faces legal challenges only the Supreme Court can resolve, and that without a Supreme Court decision, states defending bans could be liable for huge legal bills from future lawsuits if they are overturned. It was written by Daniel D. Domenico, the state's solicitor general, and Michael Lee Francisco, assistant solicitor general.
Colorado was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Source
|
On September 06 2014 11:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2014 09:40 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 16:18 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:35 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. To bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I? For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh? I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment. So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go. And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea. But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime. You don't have to be a card carrying racist or racist all the time to say something racist but that wasn't really my point. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point. My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications) So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)
So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. It was so racist that unions (at least used to) believe it. I saw nothing racist in what I said. It's not like I said "those Mexicans are so useless, all they're good for is picking food or weeds!" That would be racist, stupid, and contrary to my own experiences and interactions. A) I've made at least 3 corrections through my hundreds of posts here. I don't object. I clarified and corrected what I was saying like TWO (three?) posts after the initial one. B) You've also used extreme language before, as well. (If I recall, it was something about how most conservatives [or was it creationists] had tortured childhoods). Let's not pretend that these things don't happen. What annoys me is the fact that you are still talking about it. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). I agree. Two wrongs make a right. Again, the rich person part wasn't the point. Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). Lawlessness it just one way to ruin a state. It is by no means an exclusive way. Perhaps you should take off your race/privileged colored glasses and not try to extract something I didn't say from what I did. The topic was, from Danglars very first post, about illegal immigration. I was reacting to that. It seems to me that you just liked "close the backdoor, open the front door" because it sounded really nice and tidy. So far all you've done is make an extra effort to argue for having both doors open. What did you think closing the backdoor meant, if it didn't mean stopping illegal immigration? Did you suppose he was concerned about feeling a draft? But I have work in the morning, so I'm afraid this is it. I don't like cheats- tax cheats, political cheats, pro-gamer cheats, etc. Moreover, there could be a compelling economic reason to oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was racist, it's extremity was irrelevant. You might not of meant to say something racist but you did (We all do it, just we don't all feel remorse) . Perhaps racially insensitive is a more palatable term for you though. But it was, what it was, when you said it, and it would of been if unions or anyone else said it. As I said I was just noting it so you don't ever say it again. I stand by my characterization and supported it when it was challenged (show don't tell). People could choose whether they agreed or not (though my argument was pretty definition based so the argument is almost exclusively semantic). Your statement in contrast had no linguistic nuance (beyond correction). As far as it belongs here, the more cult like sects I think definitely deserve state interference under child protection laws but we aren't there as a country yet. I was under the impression conservatives felt like states were pretty helpless to do anything to create or enforce laws that would significantly change immigration itself. So except for the weird "they come here for our license's" conspiracy theory I haven't really seen the 'lawlessness' (seriously?) regarding the parts of immigration state officials actually control? Though I guess we do agree about the people flouting the law by employing the illegal immigrants (except I would rather see their employees and practices come out into the open rather than try to prosecute them all). For instance educating, feeding, and documenting (license/ID cards) children and adults that are here (that can not be practically removed [like they have American children with no legal guardian resident) makes a hell of a lot more sense than just leaving children with parents who have no way to provide for them or forcing their parents to leave to a crappier country. There are more crappy Americans than there are crappy immigrants legal or illegal, (just from shear numbers) so I figure if we can make room and provide for crappy Americans we can absorb some crappy immigrants (though we should try to screen them out) in order to give as many as possible of the good ones a fair shot at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So while I wish that every immigrant came here legally, to perpetuate the falsehood that the ones that are here are a burden to great to bare or that the immigrants themselves are the problem does everyone a disservice. The implicit suggestion in your rhetoric (whether you realize it or not) is for some form of mass deportation also. Unless of course all the ones that are contributing to 'ruining California' you would like to give a path to citizenship? I don't have a problem with closing the back door, the problem basically boils down to republicans not trusting the democrats would close the backdoor and democrats not trusting republicans would open the front. Of course there was a compromise, but those don't happen in the house very often so we sit here doing nothing for who knows how many years... I guess republicans think if they can win the senate they can pass something more like the house. If not I don't know how much longer they will be able to hold out. I didn't extract anything from your statement that wasn't there. It's talking about issues in isolation that is one of the most common pettifogging techniques for the rhetoric you used. You start by saying they ruined it and don't pay anything. If that goes unchallenged it never gets corrected (plenty in the tea party will just say ' nuh uh' instead of acknowledging such a statement is patently false, misleading, and tainted with racism). Then from there one weasels around until we get back to "well I'm against them all and they all ruin it, but we are talking about the one's that don't belong here, so let's not address the much larger offenders who contribute far more to the problem. But don't dare suggest the hyper focus on the immigrant's role has any racial animosity to it". I had a response ready, but realized just how useless it was. I shouldn't have to explain the same thing a 3rd or 4th time. So let's pull a GreenHorizons here: A) what do you support that counts as closing the backdoor and B) Do you think Caesar Chavez was a self-hating Mexican-American? Since apparently the belief that illegal immigration could harm the regular, low wage citizen/union worker is a racist view. A) Whatever works and is practical when it comes to 'securing the border'. If that's a 40 ft triple fence with an alligator moat and drones patrolling fine, (I just don't think that does much to solve the 'costs' issue with immigration, and would probably one day be used for other reasons). But hey someone shows me the numbers, I'd be willing to look. Another option (possibly in addition if we really have to do the fence, but I think we could save the money) might be cracking down hard on everyone involved in the US. There would be a notification to get 'registered' which would put people who could prove they have been here from before a compromised date on a compromised path to citizenship/residence. Any undocumented people who did not register would be subject to immediate deportation (with some minor accommodations for extreme circumstances) More importantly any companies who had employed undocumented workers would have an opportunity to 'register' and pay some fines and back taxes (much less then they owe, with payment plans etc to try to prevent bankrupting small businesses). Businesses that did not admit to hiring undocumented workers and/or continued to do so, would be subject to anything up to and including removal of licences, massive fines, and or prison if they were found to have done so. The same goes with what legal immigration looks like. I just want it to be fair and practical. I don't have a magic number or recipe that I am advocating for but I do think we should help as many as we can help us without harming ourselves (net-net) in the process B) You seem to be confused on this part. You said: there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... That was the racist part in particular. (Again this was a tertiary point at best) Bigoted, racist, racially insensitive, pick your term doesn't really matter. The point is that it is blatantly false and misleading, the overtones of racism were just icing from a disgusting rhetorical cake. A) those enforcement measures I would also support. Maybe a little stricter, but whatever. Granting licenses is in principle opposed to this, so that's how that's relevant. Besides making the work of an illegal easier, it displays the mindset of the legislature. B) i) I was incorrect to say that they don't pay taxes." They in fact pay less, not none. in the back of my mind I even had sales taxes in mind- so that was obvious. But the overall argument seems as a matter of logic to me. The debate was stemming from the contention that the trade-off was worth it. It never had anything to do with race. It wasn't racist. Don't be stupid. The point had everything do with illegal, non-reported activity. If I was accidentally letting some sort of racist sentiment slip, I wouldn't have used the word "illegal." It was an entirely tax, law, economic based point. How you warp that into a racist statement is incredible. How can I be racist against a) something that's not even one group. Illegal immigrants come from multiple countries, and can even become illegal by overstaying visas/permits. It's not even a single homogeneous group. b) for pointing the entire time, the economic effects of the situation. Don't inject race arguments where they didn't exist. Even Sub40 managed to grasp the point I was making, once I clarified to him.
Well you know the licenses could be the first step of registration... I mean it gives them a clear date of residence and gets a bunch of their information on file. Sounds more proactive than problematic...
As for the racism point. Your refutations are textbook, if you are trying not to sound racist you are doing a bad job. I'm starting to realize just how oblivious many people are of how even though they aren't trying to sound racist the nuance in their rhetoric wreaks of it... I also am starting to see how some of it is just not realizing their ignorance about how they talk about it is part of it.
A question like
How can I be racist against
a) something that's not even one group. Illegal immigrants come from multiple countries, and can even become illegal by overstaying visas/permits. It's not even a single homogeneous group.
Is just so damn ignorant it blows my mind.... Like seriously... Just think about that question for a second... If you haven't figured it out yet keep thinking. Because if I have to explain it to you I am going to be dreadfully embarrassed for you. And I know it's not intentional but even look at the words you chose...
I don't have the time, patience, or will to parse it out for you so we can just agree to disagree about whether your original statement (and projection of fact) was racist or not.
At least the fact part got corrected, even if you are wrongheadedly still sticking to your imaginary 'matter of logic' 'less'
|
On September 06 2014 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 11:14 Introvert wrote:On September 06 2014 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2014 09:40 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 16:18 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:35 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. To bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I? For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh? I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment. So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go. And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea. But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime. You don't have to be a card carrying racist or racist all the time to say something racist but that wasn't really my point. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point. My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications) So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)
So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. It was so racist that unions (at least used to) believe it. I saw nothing racist in what I said. It's not like I said "those Mexicans are so useless, all they're good for is picking food or weeds!" That would be racist, stupid, and contrary to my own experiences and interactions. A) I've made at least 3 corrections through my hundreds of posts here. I don't object. I clarified and corrected what I was saying like TWO (three?) posts after the initial one. B) You've also used extreme language before, as well. (If I recall, it was something about how most conservatives [or was it creationists] had tortured childhoods). Let's not pretend that these things don't happen. What annoys me is the fact that you are still talking about it. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). I agree. Two wrongs make a right. Again, the rich person part wasn't the point. Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). Lawlessness it just one way to ruin a state. It is by no means an exclusive way. Perhaps you should take off your race/privileged colored glasses and not try to extract something I didn't say from what I did. The topic was, from Danglars very first post, about illegal immigration. I was reacting to that. It seems to me that you just liked "close the backdoor, open the front door" because it sounded really nice and tidy. So far all you've done is make an extra effort to argue for having both doors open. What did you think closing the backdoor meant, if it didn't mean stopping illegal immigration? Did you suppose he was concerned about feeling a draft? But I have work in the morning, so I'm afraid this is it. I don't like cheats- tax cheats, political cheats, pro-gamer cheats, etc. Moreover, there could be a compelling economic reason to oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was racist, it's extremity was irrelevant. You might not of meant to say something racist but you did (We all do it, just we don't all feel remorse) . Perhaps racially insensitive is a more palatable term for you though. But it was, what it was, when you said it, and it would of been if unions or anyone else said it. As I said I was just noting it so you don't ever say it again. I stand by my characterization and supported it when it was challenged (show don't tell). People could choose whether they agreed or not (though my argument was pretty definition based so the argument is almost exclusively semantic). Your statement in contrast had no linguistic nuance (beyond correction). As far as it belongs here, the more cult like sects I think definitely deserve state interference under child protection laws but we aren't there as a country yet. I was under the impression conservatives felt like states were pretty helpless to do anything to create or enforce laws that would significantly change immigration itself. So except for the weird "they come here for our license's" conspiracy theory I haven't really seen the 'lawlessness' (seriously?) regarding the parts of immigration state officials actually control? Though I guess we do agree about the people flouting the law by employing the illegal immigrants (except I would rather see their employees and practices come out into the open rather than try to prosecute them all). For instance educating, feeding, and documenting (license/ID cards) children and adults that are here (that can not be practically removed [like they have American children with no legal guardian resident) makes a hell of a lot more sense than just leaving children with parents who have no way to provide for them or forcing their parents to leave to a crappier country. There are more crappy Americans than there are crappy immigrants legal or illegal, (just from shear numbers) so I figure if we can make room and provide for crappy Americans we can absorb some crappy immigrants (though we should try to screen them out) in order to give as many as possible of the good ones a fair shot at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So while I wish that every immigrant came here legally, to perpetuate the falsehood that the ones that are here are a burden to great to bare or that the immigrants themselves are the problem does everyone a disservice. The implicit suggestion in your rhetoric (whether you realize it or not) is for some form of mass deportation also. Unless of course all the ones that are contributing to 'ruining California' you would like to give a path to citizenship? I don't have a problem with closing the back door, the problem basically boils down to republicans not trusting the democrats would close the backdoor and democrats not trusting republicans would open the front. Of course there was a compromise, but those don't happen in the house very often so we sit here doing nothing for who knows how many years... I guess republicans think if they can win the senate they can pass something more like the house. If not I don't know how much longer they will be able to hold out. I didn't extract anything from your statement that wasn't there. It's talking about issues in isolation that is one of the most common pettifogging techniques for the rhetoric you used. You start by saying they ruined it and don't pay anything. If that goes unchallenged it never gets corrected (plenty in the tea party will just say ' nuh uh' instead of acknowledging such a statement is patently false, misleading, and tainted with racism). Then from there one weasels around until we get back to "well I'm against them all and they all ruin it, but we are talking about the one's that don't belong here, so let's not address the much larger offenders who contribute far more to the problem. But don't dare suggest the hyper focus on the immigrant's role has any racial animosity to it". I had a response ready, but realized just how useless it was. I shouldn't have to explain the same thing a 3rd or 4th time. So let's pull a GreenHorizons here: A) what do you support that counts as closing the backdoor and B) Do you think Caesar Chavez was a self-hating Mexican-American? Since apparently the belief that illegal immigration could harm the regular, low wage citizen/union worker is a racist view. A) Whatever works and is practical when it comes to 'securing the border'. If that's a 40 ft triple fence with an alligator moat and drones patrolling fine, (I just don't think that does much to solve the 'costs' issue with immigration, and would probably one day be used for other reasons). But hey someone shows me the numbers, I'd be willing to look. Another option (possibly in addition if we really have to do the fence, but I think we could save the money) might be cracking down hard on everyone involved in the US. There would be a notification to get 'registered' which would put people who could prove they have been here from before a compromised date on a compromised path to citizenship/residence. Any undocumented people who did not register would be subject to immediate deportation (with some minor accommodations for extreme circumstances) More importantly any companies who had employed undocumented workers would have an opportunity to 'register' and pay some fines and back taxes (much less then they owe, with payment plans etc to try to prevent bankrupting small businesses). Businesses that did not admit to hiring undocumented workers and/or continued to do so, would be subject to anything up to and including removal of licences, massive fines, and or prison if they were found to have done so. The same goes with what legal immigration looks like. I just want it to be fair and practical. I don't have a magic number or recipe that I am advocating for but I do think we should help as many as we can help us without harming ourselves (net-net) in the process B) You seem to be confused on this part. You said: there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... That was the racist part in particular. (Again this was a tertiary point at best) Bigoted, racist, racially insensitive, pick your term doesn't really matter. The point is that it is blatantly false and misleading, the overtones of racism were just icing from a disgusting rhetorical cake. A) those enforcement measures I would also support. Maybe a little stricter, but whatever. Granting licenses is in principle opposed to this, so that's how that's relevant. Besides making the work of an illegal easier, it displays the mindset of the legislature. B) i) I was incorrect to say that they don't pay taxes." They in fact pay less, not none. in the back of my mind I even had sales taxes in mind- so that was obvious. But the overall argument seems as a matter of logic to me. The debate was stemming from the contention that the trade-off was worth it. It never had anything to do with race. It wasn't racist. Don't be stupid. The point had everything do with illegal, non-reported activity. If I was accidentally letting some sort of racist sentiment slip, I wouldn't have used the word "illegal." It was an entirely tax, law, economic based point. How you warp that into a racist statement is incredible. How can I be racist against a) something that's not even one group. Illegal immigrants come from multiple countries, and can even become illegal by overstaying visas/permits. It's not even a single homogeneous group. b) for pointing the entire time, the economic effects of the situation. Don't inject race arguments where they didn't exist. Even Sub40 managed to grasp the point I was making, once I clarified to him. Well you know the licenses could be the first step of registration... I mean it gives them a clear date of residence and gets a bunch of their information on file. Sounds more proactive than problematic... As for the racism point. Your refutations are textbook, if you are not trying to sound racist you are doing a bad job. I'm starting to realize just how oblivious many people are of how even though they aren't trying to sound racist the nuance in their rhetoric wreaks of it... I also am starting to see how some of it is just not realizing their ignorance about how they talk about it is part of it. A question like Show nested quote +How can I be racist against
a) something that's not even one group. Illegal immigrants come from multiple countries, and can even become illegal by overstaying visas/permits. It's not even a single homogeneous group. Is just so damn ignorant it blows my mind.... Like seriously... Just think about that question for a second... If you haven't figured it out yet keep thinking. Because if I have to explain it to you I am going to be dreadfully embarrassed for you. And I know it's not intentional but even look at the words you chose... I don't have the time, patience, or will to parse it out for you so we can just agree to disagree about whether your original statement (and projection of fact) was racist or not. At least the fact part got corrected, even if you are wrongheadedly still sticking to your imaginary 'matter of logic' 'less'
lol. You are the only one who took it as racist- everyone else understood the point I was making. Guess we're all not as smart as you are. Congratulations.
|
On September 06 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote:On September 06 2014 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).
In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”
The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.
“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.
"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added. Source yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too? If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity. Do gays turn the army gay? Do atheists try to teach people atheism and impose their values on other people? Um, yes, they are imposing their values on other people by demanding accommodations and refusing to comply with existing rules. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but this has an effect on existing rules and traditions and those groups want to have that effect. Some atheists do challenge religious people in efforts to persuade them away from their beliefs. Yes, because most of the beliefs are discriminatory, nonsensical and have no basis in anything but, as you have already said, tradition. Moving away from old rules that make no sense is not "pushing your belief" onto something. People that want to get rid of religious customs that deny them equal treatment are arguably just exercising their constitutional rights.
This is contradictory. Either they're exercising their constitutional rights or they're not pushing their beliefs. I don't think it's possible to do both at the same time.
Like I said, it's not necessarily bad to overthrow tradition or existing bureaucratic norms. But to imply that it's better because it has no effect is nonsense. If people feel that traditions are religiously oppressive, then they should be able to object to it, but it does push their belief or opinion onto the tradition.
It seems very odd that the Air Force does not have accommodations for people who want to omit "so help me God", which btw doesn't necessarily have to be an expression of atheism alone. It's possible that believers might also object and not want to say it. I don't like the false dichotomy of atheists vs evangelists, as though everyone has to be one or the other.
|
WSJ has an interesting article on why tax inversions became a thing:
If you were wondering why the White House suddenly took an interest in the consequences of tax inversion deals last spring, here is the reason – a pair of Wall Streeters with ties to the Obama administration made some calls on behalf of AstraZeneca which, you may recall, was trying to fend off an unwanted bid from Pfizer . Pfizer cited a tax inversion as one reason for its offer.
Specifically, AstraZeneca employed Thomas Nides, a Morgan Stanley vice chairman who was deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration until last year, and who also served in the Clinton administration. The drug maker also tapped Roger Altman of Evercore Partners , a former deputy Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, according to The Wall Street Journal.
In a tax inversion deal, a U.S. company buys a foreign company and reincorporates headquarters overseas where corporate taxes are lower. Why? As the Journal notes, the acquiring company can reduce taxes by adding debt to its U.S. unit and shifting profits overseas. The tactic is not new, but has been accelerating, especially among drug and device makers, as investment bankers peddle the advantages.
The Pfizer bid for AstraZeneca did not pan out for other reasons, but the outreach by Nides and Altman, among others, prompted the Obama administration to decide that inversion deals are not a good idea, at least for the U.S. Treasury. As the Journal writes, the White House “went from being a mostly passive objector to the architect of still undisclosed policies aimed at curtailing the tax benefits” of inversions.
Next week, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is expected to make a speech about overhauling business taxes, underscoring White House concern about inversion deals after receiving calls from corporate America that more such deals were likely. The latest example popped up this week: Burger King wants to buy the Tim Horton food chain that is based in Canada and move its headquarters there.
The Journal, by the way, notes that both Nides and Altman disclosed they called on behalf of AstraZeneca. A spokeswoman for the drug maker says part of its strategy to thwart Pfizer was to engage “with Washington stakeholders in the appropriate way as we would do with governments and policy makers in the countries in which we operate.”
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yet another tax accounting innovation.
|
On September 06 2014 11:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2014 11:14 Introvert wrote:On September 06 2014 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2014 09:40 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 16:18 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 15:35 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... I see the granting of driver's licenses as perverse incentives, if you don't want to go into numbers (wasn't my intention either). Unless you are an economist and could enlighten me As far as I'm aware though, that used to be the union position- at least in California. And during the time of Chavez it was undeniably true, since illegals were used as strike breakers more than once. The stuff he said and did about illegal Mexican immigrants... it wouldn't be allowed today, lol. I have seen no proof that they pay (to borrow a liberal phrase) their "fair share." Google quickly leads to groups claiming both sides, but it seems logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. My main point is that we have politicians, instead of doing something to discourage illegal immigration and fix legal immigration (whatever may be broken), that they just advocate skirting existing law with new, BS laws. This offends my sensibilities towards law and order IF you come here to play the game, then you have to play by the rules. On September 05 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:On September 05 2014 11:34 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California? Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear. Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit! It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud... You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance. But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7sLike families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made?
How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from.
Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist.
I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such.
Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. Ok I didn't comment on California specifically but I guess I would support having them get licenses. I see a lot of positives and not a lot of negatives. Other policies I guess would have to be evaluated on their own merits. Also you said "I'm not an economist" so I'm not going to go into the wage argument. I'm also not commenting on the value of either sides argument (narrative) just that one sounds pretty scroogy (It could be true that basically 'we can't afford it' [I don't buy it, but it could be true]). As for the tax argument since you admitted/clarified that illegal immigrants do pay taxes to pay for the services you mentioned it seems it would be easier to understand what you are trying to say by explaining which taxes, towards which services, you think they are not paying? Numbers/percentages (even estimates) would be nice but I don't expect them. I'm actually far right of most here on immigration in general. My problem is our hypocrisy more than our policy (though I see it's broken). I used to say tear down the statue of liberty, but now my frugality has kicked in and I say just change the inscription. But having that message and our immigration policy at the same time is far more shameful, than hearing that message and coming here, legally or not... but it seems that logical that when you have people who are (again, in the words of the Democrat party) "undocumented" that they would pay less in taxes than the average citizen in their position. This is before benefits for citizens, of course. What taxes dont illegals pay? Not social security or federal income ? They obviously must pay all the consumption taxes and probably local taxes like property right? Like I've said- they do pay taxes since there are certain things you buy for which you must pay taxes. Property, for one. I imagine income being payed under the table is a major player. So I'm not saying that they pay no taxes, but until it's shown to be false, it's probably less than they would were they legal citizens. I admit to having no hard and fast proof, however. Well my point was that when you start with completely fallacious and inflammatory statements like Show nested quote +Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It becomes really easy to tune out the rest of what may be a reasonable argument. You didn't post the data because you had never seen it. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something. So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing? Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. To bad, for a minute I thought you were actually understanding what I was saying. Going from "they don't pay taxes for the services they use" to "they probably pay less than a legal immigrant/native but I actually have no factual/data driven basis for that claim" is a lot closer to being caught red-handed using the same tired old rhetoric to advance the same tired, old, propaganda and trying to back track to save face than some sort of clarification. I've seen lots of data, I have more bookmarks on these things than I could ever hope to use. I've actually looked this stuff up before. So yes, I've seen data. I've tried to correct that first statement like 3 or 4 times now. I'm hardly dodging. I've admitted mistakes before- I have no objection to it. Why would I? For me that's enough. I just can't stand ignorant (kinda racist) statements like you started with. Especially if you take off the privilege glasses and realize there is probably much larger sums of money dodging taxes from California's many millionaires (and just average people for that matter) than from the people picking their fruit and mowing their lawns (among other jobs). There was nothing racist in it- that's pure projection on your part. I've been harping on people who play the system in every context. I even provided an example of a famed worker's rights champion who had the same intuition I did. He was a Mexican-American. Such a racist, huh? I just can't stand it when someone begins a lecture with "privilege." You know why I didn't talk about rich people? Because it wasn't the topic of discussion! I wasn't advocatiing two seperate standards. That's you. They are poor illegal immigrants, so they should get a pass compared to everyone else (including the legal immigrants). So i'm not even going to address if that comparison is accurate. (I'm sure the laborers hired day-by-day payed in straight cash send their money to the IRS with all haste). Until you prove my claim false it's true too than right....? My contention was that it was a logical inference. It still seems logical. Having seen how inconclusive the data is, I'll lean towards the logic at this moment. So what taxes specifically are they avoiding again because you didn't mention any... Other than ones who are actually being dodged by their native/legal resident business owner...? You make it sound like the illegal immigrants are forcing businesses to pay illegal wages under the table at gunpoint or something.
So besides the paychecks that their employers are writing off as lord knows what (more likely not paying taxes on cash jobs and pulling wages from them) what elaborate tax avoidance strategies do you imagine them doing?
Because as of now it looks like they are paying as much taxes as anyone else in their income bracket. I mentioned in passing income taxes, which can be dodged by being payed to daily, offsite laborers with cash after being picked up at certain places where, for instance, the farmers know to go. And make no mistake, the people who hire them also benefit greatly. But again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. Even sub40 acknowledged this possibility, but wonders if the net benefit offsets this. It's hardly a far-fetched idea. But I will give the leftist strategy of name calling the victory. Accusing people of racism is enough for me to lose the interest in this recreational pastime. You don't have to be a card carrying racist or racist all the time to say something racist but that wasn't really my point. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point. My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications) So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. And that specific rhetoric fits the undoubtedly racist narrative propaganda commonly used in the more extreme parts of the right (who tend not to admit to such clarifications)
So I am clear I wasn't calling you racist just the statement. But it's how wrong and baseless it was that bothered me, the racist part was just a reminder about how that exact rhetoric is commonly used. It was so racist that unions (at least used to) believe it. I saw nothing racist in what I said. It's not like I said "those Mexicans are so useless, all they're good for is picking food or weeds!" That would be racist, stupid, and contrary to my own experiences and interactions. A) I've made at least 3 corrections through my hundreds of posts here. I don't object. I clarified and corrected what I was saying like TWO (three?) posts after the initial one. B) You've also used extreme language before, as well. (If I recall, it was something about how most conservatives [or was it creationists] had tortured childhoods). Let's not pretend that these things don't happen. What annoys me is the fact that you are still talking about it. 'passed by paying' yeah see they have to be hired/payed by someone who is dodging the taxes before they even have a chance to 'dodge' them (as if they wouldn't prefer being a legal tax paying worker)...So no. Nothing. You have NO taxes they are avoiding that aren't first being avoided by a legal resident (offsetting most if not all net dodging). I agree. Two wrongs make a right. Again, the rich person part wasn't the point. Your indignant attitude at the evocation of privilege says more than you know, but again, not my point.
My point was that in talking about 'ruining California' you created this imaginary world where 'illegal immigrants pay no, some, less, taxes'. I was just pointing out far more tax revenue is lost from non-illegal immigrants dodging taxes (all of the illegal employers and then some) and that scapegoating the taxes of illegal immigrants was totally (even self-admittedly) unfounded other than your unnamed sources (who probably didn't account for the fact that their employers had to avoid taxes in order to pay them too). Lawlessness it just one way to ruin a state. It is by no means an exclusive way. Perhaps you should take off your race/privileged colored glasses and not try to extract something I didn't say from what I did. The topic was, from Danglars very first post, about illegal immigration. I was reacting to that. It seems to me that you just liked "close the backdoor, open the front door" because it sounded really nice and tidy. So far all you've done is make an extra effort to argue for having both doors open. What did you think closing the backdoor meant, if it didn't mean stopping illegal immigration? Did you suppose he was concerned about feeling a draft? But I have work in the morning, so I'm afraid this is it. I don't like cheats- tax cheats, political cheats, pro-gamer cheats, etc. Moreover, there could be a compelling economic reason to oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was racist, it's extremity was irrelevant. You might not of meant to say something racist but you did (We all do it, just we don't all feel remorse) . Perhaps racially insensitive is a more palatable term for you though. But it was, what it was, when you said it, and it would of been if unions or anyone else said it. As I said I was just noting it so you don't ever say it again. I stand by my characterization and supported it when it was challenged (show don't tell). People could choose whether they agreed or not (though my argument was pretty definition based so the argument is almost exclusively semantic). Your statement in contrast had no linguistic nuance (beyond correction). As far as it belongs here, the more cult like sects I think definitely deserve state interference under child protection laws but we aren't there as a country yet. I was under the impression conservatives felt like states were pretty helpless to do anything to create or enforce laws that would significantly change immigration itself. So except for the weird "they come here for our license's" conspiracy theory I haven't really seen the 'lawlessness' (seriously?) regarding the parts of immigration state officials actually control? Though I guess we do agree about the people flouting the law by employing the illegal immigrants (except I would rather see their employees and practices come out into the open rather than try to prosecute them all). For instance educating, feeding, and documenting (license/ID cards) children and adults that are here (that can not be practically removed [like they have American children with no legal guardian resident) makes a hell of a lot more sense than just leaving children with parents who have no way to provide for them or forcing their parents to leave to a crappier country. There are more crappy Americans than there are crappy immigrants legal or illegal, (just from shear numbers) so I figure if we can make room and provide for crappy Americans we can absorb some crappy immigrants (though we should try to screen them out) in order to give as many as possible of the good ones a fair shot at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So while I wish that every immigrant came here legally, to perpetuate the falsehood that the ones that are here are a burden to great to bare or that the immigrants themselves are the problem does everyone a disservice. The implicit suggestion in your rhetoric (whether you realize it or not) is for some form of mass deportation also. Unless of course all the ones that are contributing to 'ruining California' you would like to give a path to citizenship? I don't have a problem with closing the back door, the problem basically boils down to republicans not trusting the democrats would close the backdoor and democrats not trusting republicans would open the front. Of course there was a compromise, but those don't happen in the house very often so we sit here doing nothing for who knows how many years... I guess republicans think if they can win the senate they can pass something more like the house. If not I don't know how much longer they will be able to hold out. I didn't extract anything from your statement that wasn't there. It's talking about issues in isolation that is one of the most common pettifogging techniques for the rhetoric you used. You start by saying they ruined it and don't pay anything. If that goes unchallenged it never gets corrected (plenty in the tea party will just say ' nuh uh' instead of acknowledging such a statement is patently false, misleading, and tainted with racism). Then from there one weasels around until we get back to "well I'm against them all and they all ruin it, but we are talking about the one's that don't belong here, so let's not address the much larger offenders who contribute far more to the problem. But don't dare suggest the hyper focus on the immigrant's role has any racial animosity to it". I had a response ready, but realized just how useless it was. I shouldn't have to explain the same thing a 3rd or 4th time. So let's pull a GreenHorizons here: A) what do you support that counts as closing the backdoor and B) Do you think Caesar Chavez was a self-hating Mexican-American? Since apparently the belief that illegal immigration could harm the regular, low wage citizen/union worker is a racist view. A) Whatever works and is practical when it comes to 'securing the border'. If that's a 40 ft triple fence with an alligator moat and drones patrolling fine, (I just don't think that does much to solve the 'costs' issue with immigration, and would probably one day be used for other reasons). But hey someone shows me the numbers, I'd be willing to look. Another option (possibly in addition if we really have to do the fence, but I think we could save the money) might be cracking down hard on everyone involved in the US. There would be a notification to get 'registered' which would put people who could prove they have been here from before a compromised date on a compromised path to citizenship/residence. Any undocumented people who did not register would be subject to immediate deportation (with some minor accommodations for extreme circumstances) More importantly any companies who had employed undocumented workers would have an opportunity to 'register' and pay some fines and back taxes (much less then they owe, with payment plans etc to try to prevent bankrupting small businesses). Businesses that did not admit to hiring undocumented workers and/or continued to do so, would be subject to anything up to and including removal of licences, massive fines, and or prison if they were found to have done so. The same goes with what legal immigration looks like. I just want it to be fair and practical. I don't have a magic number or recipe that I am advocating for but I do think we should help as many as we can help us without harming ourselves (net-net) in the process B) You seem to be confused on this part. You said: there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... That was the racist part in particular. (Again this was a tertiary point at best) Bigoted, racist, racially insensitive, pick your term doesn't really matter. The point is that it is blatantly false and misleading, the overtones of racism were just icing from a disgusting rhetorical cake. A) those enforcement measures I would also support. Maybe a little stricter, but whatever. Granting licenses is in principle opposed to this, so that's how that's relevant. Besides making the work of an illegal easier, it displays the mindset of the legislature. B) i) I was incorrect to say that they don't pay taxes." They in fact pay less, not none. in the back of my mind I even had sales taxes in mind- so that was obvious. But the overall argument seems as a matter of logic to me. The debate was stemming from the contention that the trade-off was worth it. It never had anything to do with race. It wasn't racist. Don't be stupid. The point had everything do with illegal, non-reported activity. If I was accidentally letting some sort of racist sentiment slip, I wouldn't have used the word "illegal." It was an entirely tax, law, economic based point. How you warp that into a racist statement is incredible. How can I be racist against a) something that's not even one group. Illegal immigrants come from multiple countries, and can even become illegal by overstaying visas/permits. It's not even a single homogeneous group. b) for pointing the entire time, the economic effects of the situation. Don't inject race arguments where they didn't exist. Even Sub40 managed to grasp the point I was making, once I clarified to him. Well you know the licenses could be the first step of registration... I mean it gives them a clear date of residence and gets a bunch of their information on file. Sounds more proactive than problematic... As for the racism point. Your refutations are textbook, if you are not trying to sound racist you are doing a bad job. I'm starting to realize just how oblivious many people are of how even though they aren't trying to sound racist the nuance in their rhetoric wreaks of it... I also am starting to see how some of it is just not realizing their ignorance about how they talk about it is part of it. A question like How can I be racist against
a) something that's not even one group. Illegal immigrants come from multiple countries, and can even become illegal by overstaying visas/permits. It's not even a single homogeneous group. Is just so damn ignorant it blows my mind.... Like seriously... Just think about that question for a second... If you haven't figured it out yet keep thinking. Because if I have to explain it to you I am going to be dreadfully embarrassed for you. And I know it's not intentional but even look at the words you chose... I don't have the time, patience, or will to parse it out for you so we can just agree to disagree about whether your original statement (and projection of fact) was racist or not. At least the fact part got corrected, even if you are wrongheadedly still sticking to your imaginary 'matter of logic' 'less' lol. You are the only one who took it as racist- everyone else understood the point I was making. Guess we're all not as smart as you are. Congratulations.
How many of them do you think are commonly discriminated against minorities? Even if many/any of them are, most people are sick of trying to explain it. So we tend to just suck it up and try to ignore/give people the benefit of the doubt. It only came up because it was part of a inflammatory statement you made suggesting 'illegals pay no taxes' for the services they use.
Statements like you made are similar to how rumors work. It doesn't have to be true and you can even say "I didn't mean that" but the damage is done. Some person heard that line and will go repeat it somewhere like you did here. Only there (maybe at a thanksgiving dinner[maybe even with a fair skinned 'dreamer' at the table {maybe he's dating his daughter}]) the situation is a bit different.
Details:
+ Show Spoiler +So the guy who read your comment goes ahead and matter of factly complains 'One of the things ruining California is all these illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes for all the services they use' Now he like you thinks he's only commenting on criminals etc. and there is nothing racist about what he said. Meanwhile the 'dreamer' is thinking... "Man WTF?!, First that was rude as hell. Second what does he mean ' they don't pay taxes' I remember my mom and dad struggling to make rent, explaining to me that we could only afford a 'treat' that was food because we had to pay 'tax' on toys. Third, they busted their asses everyday 12-15 hours a day sometimes 6-7 days a week, not to mention I was there with them since I was 12 for the same hours. All that for wages that would be criminal to pay to you or your daughter. And now, you are going to sit at this table, look me in the eye and say my parent's didn't earn the right to send me to at least, a much shittier public school than you would even let your kids play a soccer game at, let alone attend???....Well you can go right ahead and (Expletives) + Show Spoiler + fuck yourself you ignorant, bigoted, racist, pompous, privileged, needle dicked fuck!" But what does he say.... "You know what Moth.. *holds back*...Marcus, I know, exactly what you mean..." **probably feeling like a worthless leech or holding back intense rage** You may think of illegal immigrants as 'some thing' you can't possibly be racist against, and that statements like you and the man in this example have made aren't racist because you don't think so and others chose to look past it, but I'm telling you that you are wrong. I don't even really say it for you though at this point. I say it for some dreamer who may happen to be reading this or run into someone who has so that they know they matter and other people should not to say things like you have said. And that if they do the emotions they would feel are normal and they aren't "creating a race issue where it doesn't exist" it's real, it hurts, and it's not fair that people don't even care and anyone should feel empowered to challenge it when they here garbage like that. I understand it will be explained as being based on the issue not the people. But we all know issues only matter in as much as they impact people and statements have impacts, intentional and un... And not that it matters, but the example is one from a friend I made when we both mentioned the problems we had with our gf's families once they found out our ethnicity at a work event. In retrospect that is probably why I bothered to say something in the first place. It was basically a direct quote from that asshole dad. I trust you when you say you aren't doing it intentionally (like he was, as it became clear later) but at least come away with this. When you say stuff like that it really fucking hurts people deep. Like really deep. It strikes at who they are at their core and at the people who they care about most. Just because you think it is a policy discussion doesn't mean advocating certain policies or carelessly throwing out ignorant, hurtful, outright wrong statements doesn't mean very specific things to people. Furthermore, when someone takes the time to point it out, try not to be so indignant about it, apologize, acknowledge that you hadn't thought about it as being racist, and that you honestly can't see how it would be so offensive, but you will respectfully not say things like that or in that particular way. (If you want to finish the job) You can then do some research (on your own) and find out why that might be offensive to whoever you offended.
TLDR: It hurts man, it's rude, wrong, and lazy. Just don't do it again and if you hear someone else say it (I can't imagine you won't. Do the world a favor and correct them, then let them know why they shouldn't say it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
