|
From http://www.communitychange.org/our-projects/firm/our-work/general-information-on-immigration/top-10-myths-about-immigration
The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.
Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.
Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "suspense file" (taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
|
On May 13 2010 05:07 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 04:04 JinMaikeul wrote:On May 13 2010 04:01 phosphorylation wrote:
people arguing for illegal immigration are just retarded
first, it is illegal
second, it is unjust for everyone else in the world who wants to come to america but don't flank the states' borders to cross it like the mexicants
do you realize how much effort/time/money it took for my parents (from korea) to be allowed into this country?
this is not even going into the possible economic damage they create
Pretty much this... My parents came into America from Korea, too. It doesn't mean squat. The thing is, while the law has good INTENTIONS, it is blatant profiling, which I believe far outweighs the "OMG THEY'RE ILLEGAL" aspect. Oh, and I'd like to see you take on some of the jobs that illegal immigrants take.
Guess what? When someone commits a crime, the police get a profile of what the criminal looks like. If the criminal is a white male 5'10 do you think the police will stop a Hispanic or black man and think they are suspects? NO!
|
On May 13 2010 10:55 Zealotdriver wrote:From http://www.communitychange.org/our-projects/firm/our-work/general-information-on-immigration/top-10-myths-about-immigrationShow nested quote +The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years. Show nested quote +Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use. Show nested quote +Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "suspense file" (taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
Wow from an impartial source. NOT! Fact is that illegals come here and have babies. These babies let the illegals obtain food stamps and allow the illegals to send the babies to school. The cost per student is very high. I think some districts have it at 10k a year. Have 2 babies and the illegals will quickly suck more than they contribute. And that's only from education costs.
|
On May 13 2010 10:54 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:52 Musoeun wrote:
Incidentally, don't you already have to show identification most times a cop stops you, especially if you're being ticketed/charged?
And don't you, most places in the US, already have to be a legal resident in order to have legal identification?
I'm honestly not seeing that this law actually accomplishes anything new. As far as I can tell, it's a rhetorical ploy by the AZ GOP to say, "Look, we're dealing with the issue!" when in fact it doesn't change anything. It's already illegal to be an illegal immigrant, you already have to show an ID any time you're pulled over by a cop... this really doesn't add anything except a bunch of verbiage. The law allows Arizona to make it a crime if you're an illegal. The best Arizona could do previously if they saw an illegal was detain him or her for 48 hours waiting for an immigration official. Ultimately, the official doesn't come and the police will need to release the illegal.
Ah, okay.
So this law makes it a state crime to be illegally in the United States while in Arizona. I'm really not seeing the problem with this, either.
|
zeke50100, "OMG THEY ARE ASKING FOR MY ID BECAUSE I LOOK MEXICAN" aspect is really really minor to all the bane, injustice, and illegality that the illegal immigrants bring to the country
you should really talk to your parents about it and ask them how they feel about the issue
when they find what you think, i can be certain that they will give you a fucking korean-style beating
|
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
thx for taking my questions
np
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
The process in which the state gave their approval or disapproval to some of them, right?
Yes, pretty much.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
The state claims to be entitled to regulate all land. Do you agree with them on the decision of deporting illegal immigrants?
I mean, if I pay and ask a security guard to kick some junkie out of my bar, I am forcing that junkie out of my bar, am I not?
You are therefore forcing them by proxy basically...
My personal opinion is that we should be focused on preventing more illegal immigrants from coming in rather than looking through the masses to find illegal immigrants here to deport. I'm fine with people who are already here for the most part so long as they are law abiding citizens. I fully support deporting illegal immigrants that commit crimes, though.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
Again, if you agree on the governments decision to kick out the foreign competition, and is paying them to, it's the same as if you were doing that mercantilist routine yourself... don't you agree?
I don't deny this. The government ultimately represents the voice of the American people whether or not certain individuals may agree with it. However, I stand by the notion of protecting the interests of my own nation and citizens above all else.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
The line which was arbitrarily drawn by the government.
Which arbitrarily claims to own all land.
That's fine with me if you respect their claim, and I do too to an extent, but only utilitarianly (not sure if that word exists lol), aka don't want to be arrested.
Hardly something I'd be proud to agree on, much like I wouldn't be proud of giving away my wallet at gunpoint.
When I said "cutting the line", I was referring more to something like cutting in front of someone on the lunch line at school. It's disrespectful towards the other people waiting for their turn. Yes, the government arbitrarily claims to own all the land within its boundaries. That's how governments and nations work all over the world, not just here in the USA. There is a specific process that one must go through in order to enter this country legally. Many people go through this process at the expense of their own time, effort, and money. Illegal immigrants bypass this. If I paid $10 and waited in line to watch a movie and some guy sneaks in for free through the emergency exit, it bothers me.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:Ok, so the government owns all land. 
Pretty much...
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:From that website, one of the first lines Show nested quote +For example, if the year-to-year GDP is up 3%, this is thought to mean that the economy has grown by 3% over the last year. It is thought, by keynesians, that the economy has grown. However this is demonstrably false, see the "broken window fallacy" somewhere. GDP can grow for any number of increased products or services that are actually no good "for the economy" (whatever that means). E.g. is making tanks, huge and unusable nails, breaking windows and then fixing them good for "the economy"? I don't know man, but they're sure good for the GDP. The trick here is realising that "the economy" and the GDP are separate concepts, the first one being almost impossible to gauge the values of (too many people with individual wishes and needs for any single or group of economists to account for)
I honestly am not an economist and admittedly, my knowledge of it is quite limited. When people cry about the GDP, I assume they're crying about the actual state of the economy rather than the GDP as a precise number.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
"economy growth" =/= gdp growth, at the very least not necessarily so.
(if I got the least understanding of what you mean by "economy")
Pretty much what I said above. I doubt people crying about the GDP are crying about the number itself so much as what it supposedly represents. Whether or not the GDP is an accurate representation of the state of the economy is not important because it's the economy they're ultimately crying about.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
The people living at those places maybe?
The way I see it is, you give money to a public fund for public services, and don't want it spend in your neighborhood because some people aren't labelled as legal by your state? Why not? If the purpose of those funds is to elevate the "public good" (lol can't believe I'm saying that), then I wouldn't give a damn where they spend it as long as it's in my state/township. Give it to sick puppies, illegal sick puppies even.
Well everyone has different opinions regarding this. This is why we have different political parties and different groups of people lobbying for different things. The way I understand taxes is that you pay them and you pretty much get your money back in services and other things such as roads and bridges. This works fine when everyone is paying their fair share. The whole thing about giving money to the "public good" thing doesn't really work for me because I don't get to choose whether or not I pay taxes. Regardless of whether I'm feeling charitable or not, 40% of my income is gone with every paycheck. If I wanted to give money to the public good, I'd donate to charity. Tax money isn't charity nor should it be forced charity.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
There's land taxes too which I don't think illegal aliens can evade too good.
Especially if they're renting which in that case it's payed by the landlord already
And AFAIK, those land taxes are what pay for things in most states. But I could be wrong, and I'd like if someone (googled info 4 me lol and) explained it better.
Well property taxes pretty much fall in line with taxes you pay on stuff you buy. Most illegal immigrants don't own land or property. The vast majority of them rent. Of course the landlord collects the taxes he needs to pay along with the rent money, but I can't think of too many illegal immigrants I know that have the type of income to be in the situation where they would be paying property tax.
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:Yes thats fine. I see how one would feel entitled to say how a thief can use his stolen money too. I just don't because I'd rather call the thief a thief instead of trying to negotiate. ty 4 reading these poor utopian thoughts
Well despite my frustration every time I receive a paycheck, I do realize that taxes are necessary to keep our communities functioning. From that standpoint, I don't really consider the government a thief for taking them since I benefit from the hospitals, roads, bridges, schools, etc. too. That being said, because it is ultimately our money as tax payers, it's important for us to keep track of it and keep the government accountable for the manner in which they spend it. Of course the direct decisions are made by a select group of individuals, but as a community of voters, we do have a voice and do deserve to have it heard by those we elect to represent us.
|
On May 13 2010 10:46 phosphorylation wrote:
wow yurebis you are truly idiotic
ty for the kind words
On May 13 2010 10:46 phosphorylation wrote:
following your ridiculous restaurant analogy, the restaurant owners and customers are pissed now that they've run out of funds because of these free loaders
Nope, the customers should most likely be pissed at the restaurant for not giving them the food they payed for. What the restaurant did or did not give to others is of no importance in their individual transaction.
On May 13 2010 10:46 phosphorylation wrote:
nobody was giving out anything for free; these mexicans just sneaked and hide in a closet while coming out during night to grab food from the pantry
So they raided the hospitals and schools then? That what you saying?
If that's the case I'd be for deporting or arresting them too. But it's not.
On May 13 2010 10:46 phosphorylation wrote:
now they want to change that and kick out these free loaders
That may give a quick fix since they'll have a smaller customer pool and service to manage, but as taxation and services increases, you'll just have the same problem.
On May 13 2010 10:46 phosphorylation wrote:
i fail to see what you are arguing against here
The problem is the state's fiscal irresponsibility (or inability tbh).
On May 13 2010 10:46 phosphorylation wrote:
even IF these illegal immigrants don't cause financial strain (they do), it's competlely absurd for them to come to US
should korea just allow japanese citizens to randomly visit without visas? should china allow vietnamese to enter the country without visas? there is an utter lack of accountability and documentation
it is illegal for a reason
What's the reason?
On May 13 2010 10:46 phosphorylation wrote:
i mentioned this earlier but another big reason is that this is huge injustice for the millions of other foreigners who dearly want to come to this country but cannot simply sneak over a border like the mex
do you have any idea how complicated/involved/time-consuming/difficult it is for a foreigner to be allowed to 1) come to this country and 2)stay here?
well, i know what my parents had to go through and shit you say is insulting to them
So because the state makes it harder for some, they should make it harder for everyone?
I'd rather not have them make it harder for anyone yeah, and I don't see any benefit from their licensing. Who are they protecting with such regulations? And why can't those people being protected manage it in any other way than force everyone to comply with their strict stipulations?
|
On May 13 2010 10:40 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2010 10:08 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:04 Weedman wrote:To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you?
Nothing. You are just to dumb to figure out how they have effected you. Sure one has never walked up to you and punched you in the gut however I guarantee illegal immigration has effected every person in the country in some way.. Give me some example or thought experiment. If the only difference between an illegal immigrant and the legal immigrant is state approval, then I doubt anything the illegal does is something the legal wouldn't do. Or the native wouldn't do for that matter. There's been ample discussion in this thread about how illegal immigrants negatively affect Americans. To sum it up, states and communities suffer from high populations of illegal immigrants because the illegal immigrants drain local resources and state resources, causing fiscal problems. That is why Arizona is cracking down with this bill. Define drain. How do they drain it? Are they stealing, invading and killing? Or are they just using a public resource that was put in place by the state? Imagine the same thing were to happen on private property. You are in a restaurant, and a bunch of mexicans come in and just eat everything. It also happens that you weren't able to get the meal you actually paid for. Who do you complain to and about? I'd complain to and about the restaurant, not the freeloaders which were just taking what the restaurant was giving out for free. Why is it not the same deal when it comes to public property? Can't you come out openly and say that it's owned by the state? The state is the restaurant. But it's funny that the state can offload those complaints to others when he just points the finger at greedy capitalists or illegal immigrants for its own administrative inabilities...
They drain it by using, for example, the welfare system. They place an undue burden on the welfare system by birthing so many children(as the objective is to get a baby born in the U.S asap to be "anchored" to the U.S). that their salaries, the mere pittances that they receive, would be unable to sufficiently cover the costs. By coming over here illegally also, the stress placed on the welfare system by said sample family would have and should have never existed.
Education is another example. They attend public schools, which cause larger classroom sizes and also some don't really have any proficiency in English at all, necessitating the formulation of ESL programs (not necessarily bad, but still a program needed), which require more money to pay new teachers and fund new programs. In addition, the aforementioned larger classroom sizes makes it more difficult for teachers to effectively teach their classes. Then, both legal and illegal children get an even worse-off education. Moreso with the legal children because they have the parents who fund the education system in the first place with taxes, and which, because of increased classroom sizes, need for more programs, etc. as a result of illegal immigrants, cause the diminishing of the quality of education they get. The children get a lesser potential education than they would have received.
Plus, the argument I've been hearing about illegals not paying taxes anyways (which is true, think that ~50% aren't paying taxes due to low income) isn't really addressing the crux of the argument.
The crux is that illegals are benefitting from programs initially designed to assist the nation's legal citizens by the nation's legal citizen's tax money. By swamping these free systems, the undocumented immigrants drain taxpayer money because they don't really need to pay for any of the programs. For instance, by receiving welfare, they cause a burden on the system, that really, should never be there in the first place as I mentioned earlier. Other programs also get swamped. As a result, the actual taxpayer who funds these programs receive lesser quality programs because of the overwhelming numbers of undocumented immigrants utilizing the programs. Their money has to also help illegal, along with the legal citizens.
|
On May 13 2010 10:51 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:40 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2010 10:08 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:04 Weedman wrote:To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you?
Nothing. You are just to dumb to figure out how they have effected you. Sure one has never walked up to you and punched you in the gut however I guarantee illegal immigration has effected every person in the country in some way.. Give me some example or thought experiment. If the only difference between an illegal immigrant and the legal immigrant is state approval, then I doubt anything the illegal does is something the legal wouldn't do. Or the native wouldn't do for that matter. There's been ample discussion in this thread about how illegal immigrants negatively affect Americans. To sum it up, states and communities suffer from high populations of illegal immigrants because the illegal immigrants drain local resources and state resources, causing fiscal problems. That is why Arizona is cracking down with this bill. Define drain. How do they drain it? Are they stealing, invading and killing? Or are they just using a public resource that was put in place by the state? Imagine the same thing were to happen on private property. You are in a restaurant, and a bunch of mexicans come in and just eat everything. It also happens that you weren't able to get the meal you actually paid for. Who do you complain to and about? I'd complain to and about the restaurant, not the freeloaders which were just taking what the restaurant was giving out for free. Why is it not the same deal when it comes to public property? Can't you come out openly and say that it's owned by the state? The state is the restaurant. But it's funny that the state can offload those complaints to others when he just points the finger at greedy capitalists or illegal immigrants for its own administrative inabilities... That's why Arizona is doing something by trying to get rid of the illegals? If its the state's problem, the state needs to come up with a solution. Yes.
On May 13 2010 10:51 hacpee wrote: In your analogy, the obvious solution would be to eat the costs and then kick the Mexicans out and never let them come again.
Or make them pay.
And I srsly doubt they're not paying for it already.
To me this sounds like BS. Thinking privately again, what kind of entrepreneur wouldn't want more customers? Kicking out people would be a last case scenario and on emergency situations where there's so many people that the place is too crowded, but even then, the entrepreneur would probably open up another store or remodel the place to add room.
The state can't do that... can they? They're so slow to adapt... so they got to kick out some people? Ok then.
Also, the state owns all land. Coolios.
|
yurebis, you amaze me by how incorrigibly brain washed you are
the part that gets me is that you seem to be somewhat smart and confident yet, at the same time, utterly fail to evaluate the problem correctly, which is really not at all that complicated or ambivalent
|
On May 13 2010 11:09 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:51 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 10:40 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2010 10:08 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:04 Weedman wrote:To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you?
Nothing. You are just to dumb to figure out how they have effected you. Sure one has never walked up to you and punched you in the gut however I guarantee illegal immigration has effected every person in the country in some way.. Give me some example or thought experiment. If the only difference between an illegal immigrant and the legal immigrant is state approval, then I doubt anything the illegal does is something the legal wouldn't do. Or the native wouldn't do for that matter. There's been ample discussion in this thread about how illegal immigrants negatively affect Americans. To sum it up, states and communities suffer from high populations of illegal immigrants because the illegal immigrants drain local resources and state resources, causing fiscal problems. That is why Arizona is cracking down with this bill. Define drain. How do they drain it? Are they stealing, invading and killing? Or are they just using a public resource that was put in place by the state? Imagine the same thing were to happen on private property. You are in a restaurant, and a bunch of mexicans come in and just eat everything. It also happens that you weren't able to get the meal you actually paid for. Who do you complain to and about? I'd complain to and about the restaurant, not the freeloaders which were just taking what the restaurant was giving out for free. Why is it not the same deal when it comes to public property? Can't you come out openly and say that it's owned by the state? The state is the restaurant. But it's funny that the state can offload those complaints to others when he just points the finger at greedy capitalists or illegal immigrants for its own administrative inabilities... That's why Arizona is doing something by trying to get rid of the illegals? If its the state's problem, the state needs to come up with a solution. Yes. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:51 hacpee wrote: In your analogy, the obvious solution would be to eat the costs and then kick the Mexicans out and never let them come again.
Or make them pay. And I srsly doubt they're not paying for it already. To me this sounds like BS. Thinking privately again, what kind of entrepreneur wouldn't want more customers? Kicking out people would be a last case scenario and on emergency situations where there's so many people that the place is too crowded, but even then, the entrepreneur would probably open up another store or remodel the place to add room. The state can't do that... can they? They're so slow to adapt... so they got to kick out some people? Ok then. Also, the state owns all land. Coolios.
Do you know how the world works? Make them pay for the services they use? They will use way more services than they will ever make. If the illegals have two children, then guess what? They drain 10k+ per year from the state, just for the education costs. Then you have medicaid for the children and food stamps and all the other social services. Guess what? Illegals will not be making more than 20k a year.
But I do agree with you on one point. The social services program is messed up. We should get rid of all the social services. There are too many lazy high school dropouts leeching from productive individuals.
|
170 years ago the population was 100% hispanic. Now it's only 30% hispanic, I say they're making progress without having ridiculous laws.
|
On May 13 2010 11:19 Cloud wrote:
170 years ago the population was 100% hispanic. Now it's only 30% hispanic, I say they're making progress without having ridiculous laws.
Guess what? The US came and put the beatdown on Mexico. We destroyed them. Then we took the land. Its ours now. Mexican citizens are not allowed on US soil without a visa. If Mexico wants to take back their land, they should declare war on the US. However, I would warn against doing that. Mexico would be obliterated.
|
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 states:
"Nonimmigrants and undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving benefits. They are eligible, however, for public health, emergency services, and programs identified by the attorney general as necessary for the protection of life and safety. "
(Sources: Richardson and Wassem 2002, National Conference of State Legislators).
Just thought you'd know. Go on with your "debates."
|
On May 13 2010 10:54 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:52 Musoeun wrote:
Incidentally, don't you already have to show identification most times a cop stops you, especially if you're being ticketed/charged?
And don't you, most places in the US, already have to be a legal resident in order to have legal identification?
I'm honestly not seeing that this law actually accomplishes anything new. As far as I can tell, it's a rhetorical ploy by the AZ GOP to say, "Look, we're dealing with the issue!" when in fact it doesn't change anything. It's already illegal to be an illegal immigrant, you already have to show an ID any time you're pulled over by a cop... this really doesn't add anything except a bunch of verbiage. The law allows Arizona to make it a crime if you're an illegal. The best Arizona could do previously if they saw an illegal was detain him or her for 48 hours waiting for an immigration official. Ultimately, the official doesn't come and the police will need to release the illegal.
This is yet another joke with the whole thing. I'm being completely honest...I think people protesting this law are clueless. Unconstitutional? LOL. Arizona simply passed a law that doesn't even really do much. All it does is attempt to enforce laws that are already in place because the federal government won't get off their ass and put into place reform and enforcement of the reform.
Until the border gets 100% shut down, this law or any other law doesn't even do enough.
|
The problem with your analogy is the the way private institutions operate is completely different from the way a government operates. The social services that are provided by the government, while not completely necessary, are important enough that you could not just take them away on a whim without hurting a lot of people beyond the illegal immigrants presenting a drain on the system. It's not a simple matter of "we won't give out free food anymore". Imagine the government said, "Illegal immigrants are draining too much in education funds because of their children so we'll stop public education to cut costs." It would be absurd and there would probably be a public lynching of whoever came up with such a stupid idea.
Let's say the government decided to take the position of making sure the people benefiting from their social services were actually legal. So you wouldn't be allowed emergency room care unless you could prove that you're a legal resident. We'd be right back here with people shouting about racist Gestapo policies. These are complex issues that require complex solutions because so many things are intertwined that you can't touch one thing without having serious implications on other things. And democratic governments, for better or worse, are simply not able to make decisions at a pace that would compare with a private business owner.
The government certainly tries to deal with the budget issues and maintain some semblance of fiscal responsibility, but honestly there's only so much you can do. Ultimately taxes need to go up, placing further burden on the people paying them and creating more resentment for those that are perceived as either not paying them or taking more than they're giving. The reason border security and illegal immigration are important issues is because with more illegal immigrants crossing the border each day, the imbalance continues to grow even despite the raised taxes and eventually the taxes are once again, not enough to maintain services essential to the quality of life of the community. It's a vicious cycle and an unsustainable one.
While I'm not for going door to door and forcing law abiding people to prove their legal status or be deported, I realize that it is indeed an issue and something that is going to need to be dealt with one way or another.
|
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
The state claims to be entitled to regulate all land. Do you agree with them on the decision of deporting illegal immigrants?
I mean, if I pay and ask a security guard to kick some junkie out of my bar, I am forcing that junkie out of my bar, am I not?
You are therefore forcing them by proxy basically...
My personal opinion is that we should be focused on preventing more illegal immigrants from coming in rather than looking through the masses to find illegal immigrants here to deport. I'm fine with people who are already here for the most part so long as they are law abiding citizens. I fully support deporting illegal immigrants that commit crimes, though.
And I think the crowded restaurant owner should expand his services instead of blaming the customers
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
Again, if you agree on the governments decision to kick out the foreign competition, and is paying them to, it's the same as if you were doing that mercantilist routine yourself... don't you agree?
I don't deny this. The government ultimately represents the voice of the American people whether or not certain individuals may agree with it. I certainly do not agree with it
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote: However, I stand by the notion of protecting the interests of my own nation and citizens above all else. And what are those interests if I may ask?
If some American landlord rents an apartment to an illegal immigrant, and another one gives them a job, do you think it's in their best interest for them to be deported? Is it on the best interest of the final consumer of those cheaper products or services for them to be deported?
I would think not. It's a dirty way to circumvent minimum wage laws, but the fact that the illegals are even able to work and live here, says something about the economical demand for them. If no one wanted them here, then they couldn't be here, right? Where would they live? In the woods?
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
The line which was arbitrarily drawn by the government.
Which arbitrarily claims to own all land.
That's fine with me if you respect their claim, and I do too to an extent, but only utilitarianly (not sure if that word exists lol), aka don't want to be arrested.
Hardly something I'd be proud to agree on, much like I wouldn't be proud of giving away my wallet at gunpoint.
When I said "cutting the line", I was referring more to something like cutting in front of someone on the lunch line at school. It's disrespectful towards the other people waiting for their turn. Yes, the government arbitrarily claims to own all the land within its boundaries. That's how governments and nations work all over the world, not just here in the USA. There is a specific process that one must go through in order to enter this country legally. Many people go through this process at the expense of their own time, effort, and money. Illegal immigrants bypass this. If I paid $10 and waited in line to watch a movie and some guy sneaks in for free through the emergency exit, it bothers me. In that situation, my friend, you have a direct incentive to tattle on them, because both the establishment and you are against such practice, as it underfunds what the establishment works for. However, that is not what the public services are for. If they really wanted, they could simply require everyone a social security number to get in school, in the emergency room. They don't do that because that's not what the service is there for. The service is not there to supply only the legal immigrant and american customer, it is to serve everyone, and raise the standards of living in that area. That's what a public service is meant to do, in my poor understanding (and misunderstanding) of statist philosophy.
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Pretty much...
At least you're honest
Most people don't go that far. They like to claim that their house is theirs, that they make the rules. No sir, you're in a statist world. A democratic one at that.
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:From that website, one of the first lines For example, if the year-to-year GDP is up 3%, this is thought to mean that the economy has grown by 3% over the last year. It is thought, by keynesians, that the economy has grown. However this is demonstrably false, see the "broken window fallacy" somewhere. GDP can grow for any number of increased products or services that are actually no good "for the economy" (whatever that means). E.g. is making tanks, huge and unusable nails, breaking windows and then fixing them good for "the economy"? I don't know man, but they're sure good for the GDP. The trick here is realising that "the economy" and the GDP are separate concepts, the first one being almost impossible to gauge the values of (too many people with individual wishes and needs for any single or group of economists to account for) I honestly am not an economist and admittedly, my knowledge of it is quite limited. When people cry about the GDP, I assume they're crying about the actual state of the economy rather than the GDP as a precise number.
They are crying about the economy, but they don't understand that GDP is not an accurate measure for the standards of living. It can't be proven to be. It's just an aggregate of production and servicing. The housing boom would have the GDP thinking the economy was blooming, when in fact, all that was being done was massive housing areas being built with no one to buy or live in them. Didn't help anyone, and didn't help "the economy" if I were to understand what "the economy" wants (I try not to pretend I do when I remember to).
On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
The people living at those places maybe?
The way I see it is, you give money to a public fund for public services, and don't want it spend in your neighborhood because some people aren't labelled as legal by your state? Why not? If the purpose of those funds is to elevate the "public good" (lol can't believe I'm saying that), then I wouldn't give a damn where they spend it as long as it's in my state/township. Give it to sick puppies, illegal sick puppies even.
Well everyone has different opinions regarding this. This is why we have different political parties and different groups of people lobbying for different things. The way I understand taxes is that you pay them and you pretty much get your money back in services and other things such as roads and bridges. This works fine when everyone is paying their fair share. The whole thing about giving money to the "public good" thing doesn't really work for me because I don't get to choose whether or not I pay taxes. Regardless of whether I'm feeling charitable or not, 40% of my income is gone with every paycheck. If I wanted to give money to the public good, I'd donate to charity. Tax money isn't charity nor should it be forced charity.[/QUOTE]
Yep. I'd like it to be voluntary as well.
Says a lot when it isn't. Usually things are like "I'll give you an ipod for $50", you give them $50, they give you ipod.
Strange things happen when it's the opposite way. Well, state happens.
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:
There's land taxes too which I don't think illegal aliens can evade too good.
Especially if they're renting which in that case it's payed by the landlord already
And AFAIK, those land taxes are what pay for things in most states. But I could be wrong, and I'd like if someone (googled info 4 me lol and) explained it better.
Well property taxes pretty much fall in line with taxes you pay on stuff you buy. Most illegal immigrants don't own land or property. The vast majority of them rent. Of course the landlord collects the taxes he needs to pay along with the rent money, but I can't think of too many illegal immigrants I know that have the type of income to be in the situation where they would be paying property tax. But the landlords have to be paying already, and they offset those taxes to the rent!
On May 13 2010 11:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:Yes thats fine. I see how one would feel entitled to say how a thief can use his stolen money too. I just don't because I'd rather call the thief a thief instead of trying to negotiate. ty 4 reading these poor utopian thoughts Well despite my frustration every time I receive a paycheck, I do realize that taxes are necessary to keep our communities functioning. From that standpoint, I don't really consider the government a thief for taking them since I benefit from the hospitals, roads, bridges, schools, etc. too. That being said, because it is ultimately our money as tax payers, it's important for us to keep track of it and keep the government accountable for the manner in which they spend it. Of course the direct decisions are made by a select group of individuals, but as a community of voters, we do have a voice and do deserve to have it heard by those we elect to represent us.
I wouldn't think it's so necessary
I start with the notion that nothing is necessary for anything. People adopt certain goals, and for those goals, they need explanation for each means used. I haven't seen enough of an explanation for why the state is necessary for social order, and I have seen many explanations for why it is actually the opposite, the more violence and force, even of the most mild state function, only hinders people from choosing the exact means they wanted. But thats another discussion.
In short, if you benefit from hospitals roads bridges etc., you can pay for them yourself and with whoever else benefits from them. Forcing people to collaborate with a proxy (state) at the very best just increases overhead (useless bureaucracy). At worst, misallocates resources... (theft)
|
The government is there to enforce property rights, which is a basic axiom of capitalism. Other services are just tacked on arbitrarily.
|
On May 13 2010 11:05 Apex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 10:40 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2010 10:08 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:04 Weedman wrote:To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you?
Nothing. You are just to dumb to figure out how they have effected you. Sure one has never walked up to you and punched you in the gut however I guarantee illegal immigration has effected every person in the country in some way.. Give me some example or thought experiment. If the only difference between an illegal immigrant and the legal immigrant is state approval, then I doubt anything the illegal does is something the legal wouldn't do. Or the native wouldn't do for that matter. There's been ample discussion in this thread about how illegal immigrants negatively affect Americans. To sum it up, states and communities suffer from high populations of illegal immigrants because the illegal immigrants drain local resources and state resources, causing fiscal problems. That is why Arizona is cracking down with this bill. Define drain. How do they drain it? Are they stealing, invading and killing? Or are they just using a public resource that was put in place by the state? Imagine the same thing were to happen on private property. You are in a restaurant, and a bunch of mexicans come in and just eat everything. It also happens that you weren't able to get the meal you actually paid for. Who do you complain to and about? I'd complain to and about the restaurant, not the freeloaders which were just taking what the restaurant was giving out for free. Why is it not the same deal when it comes to public property? Can't you come out openly and say that it's owned by the state? The state is the restaurant. But it's funny that the state can offload those complaints to others when he just points the finger at greedy capitalists or illegal immigrants for its own administrative inabilities... They drain it by using, for example, the welfare system. They place an undue burden on the welfare system by birthing so many children(as the objective is to get a baby born in the U.S asap to be "anchored" to the U.S). that their salaries, the mere pittances that they receive, would be unable to sufficiently cover the costs. By coming over here illegally also, the stress placed on the welfare system by said sample family would have and should have never existed. Then don't pay welfare to illegal immigrant families?
It's still falls under mismanagement of public funds...
Still the restaurant that's giving too much food away and not to those who paid for it...
On May 13 2010 11:05 Apex wrote:
Education is another example. They attend public schools, which cause larger classroom sizes and also some don't really have any proficiency in English at all, necessitating the formulation of ESL programs (not necessarily bad, but still a program needed), which require more money to pay new teachers and fund new programs. In addition, the aforementioned larger classroom sizes makes it more difficult for teachers to effectively teach their classes. Then, both legal and illegal children get an even worse-off education. Moreso with the legal children because they have the parents who fund the education system in the first place with taxes, and which, because of increased classroom sizes, need for more programs, etc. as a result of illegal immigrants, cause the diminishing of the quality of education they get. The children get a lesser potential education than they would have received. Do you know for a fact that illegal immigrants don't pay for school? Because I think they do, through property tax... unless they live in the woods.
On May 13 2010 11:05 Apex wrote:
Plus, the argument I've been hearing about illegals not paying taxes anyways (which is true, think that ~50% aren't paying taxes due to low income) isn't really addressing the crux of the argument.
The crux is that illegals are benefitting from programs initially designed to assist the nation's legal citizens by the nation's legal citizen's tax money. By swamping these free systems, the undocumented immigrants drain taxpayer money because they don't really need to pay for any of the programs. For instance, by receiving welfare, they cause a burden on the system, that really, should never be there in the first place as I mentioned earlier. Other programs also get swamped. As a result, the actual taxpayer who funds these programs receive lesser quality programs because of the overwhelming numbers of undocumented immigrants utilizing the programs. Their money has to also help illegal, along with the legal citizens.
Which taxes aren't they paying? And which services are being given to nonpaying customers? How about either making them pay, or not providing them with the service? Sounds much simpler than deporting them.
Similarly, I would rather not give free food to whoever enters my restaurant, or make them pay, instead of hiring security guards to drag them out. The mexicans aren't stealing! They're as peaceful as any other guy, isn't that correct? Then why do you have to drag em out? Put a sign saying "won't give you school anymore, needs social security number. No emergency room either" or bill them to use them when they do not have the requirements.
|
On May 13 2010 11:11 phosphorylation wrote:
yurebis, you amaze me by how incorrigibly brain washed you are
the part that gets me is that you seem to be somewhat smart and confident yet, at the same time, utterly fail to evaluate the problem correctly, which is really not at all that complicated or ambivalent
What's so hard to understand about a crowded restaurant?
On May 13 2010 11:17 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:09 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:51 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 10:40 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2010 10:08 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:04 Weedman wrote:To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you?
Nothing. You are just to dumb to figure out how they have effected you. Sure one has never walked up to you and punched you in the gut however I guarantee illegal immigration has effected every person in the country in some way.. Give me some example or thought experiment. If the only difference between an illegal immigrant and the legal immigrant is state approval, then I doubt anything the illegal does is something the legal wouldn't do. Or the native wouldn't do for that matter. There's been ample discussion in this thread about how illegal immigrants negatively affect Americans. To sum it up, states and communities suffer from high populations of illegal immigrants because the illegal immigrants drain local resources and state resources, causing fiscal problems. That is why Arizona is cracking down with this bill. Define drain. How do they drain it? Are they stealing, invading and killing? Or are they just using a public resource that was put in place by the state? Imagine the same thing were to happen on private property. You are in a restaurant, and a bunch of mexicans come in and just eat everything. It also happens that you weren't able to get the meal you actually paid for. Who do you complain to and about? I'd complain to and about the restaurant, not the freeloaders which were just taking what the restaurant was giving out for free. Why is it not the same deal when it comes to public property? Can't you come out openly and say that it's owned by the state? The state is the restaurant. But it's funny that the state can offload those complaints to others when he just points the finger at greedy capitalists or illegal immigrants for its own administrative inabilities... That's why Arizona is doing something by trying to get rid of the illegals? If its the state's problem, the state needs to come up with a solution. Yes. On May 13 2010 10:51 hacpee wrote: In your analogy, the obvious solution would be to eat the costs and then kick the Mexicans out and never let them come again.
Or make them pay. And I srsly doubt they're not paying for it already. To me this sounds like BS. Thinking privately again, what kind of entrepreneur wouldn't want more customers? Kicking out people would be a last case scenario and on emergency situations where there's so many people that the place is too crowded, but even then, the entrepreneur would probably open up another store or remodel the place to add room. The state can't do that... can they? They're so slow to adapt... so they got to kick out some people? Ok then. Also, the state owns all land. Coolios. Do you know how the world works? Make them pay for the services they use? They will use way more services than they will ever make. If the illegals have two children, then guess what? They drain 10k+ per year from the state, just for the education costs. Then you have medicaid for the children and food stamps and all the other social services. Guess what? Illegals will not be making more than 20k a year. But I do agree with you on one point. The social services program is messed up. We should get rid of all the social services. There are too many lazy high school dropouts leeching from productive individuals.
Does your lower-class suburban american with 4 children pays their 40k share to the school either?
If it's a broken system... well, it's broken on far many levels than just immigration alone I fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
