|
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010.
|
On May 13 2010 11:49 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:17 hacpee wrote: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.
Well thats another problem to talk about. It doesn't change the fact that the illegals are generally worthless and a drain on our current system.
|
On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010.
You are making a ridiculous argument. The quality of life in 1890, even with stringent regulations will not be better than the quality of life in 2010. Why? Because of this wonderful thing called technology and innovation.
|
On May 13 2010 11:02 phosphorylation wrote:
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
Do I get a cookie or something? I talked to them a few hours ago. I'm still here, and no beating took place.
|
On May 13 2010 11:53 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. You are making a ridiculous argument. The quality of life in 1890, even with stringent regulations will not be better than the quality of life in 2010. Why? Because of this wonderful thing called technology and innovation.
Right... you stick to that and see how it works out
|
On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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.
I'd guess that people would go to private schools then?
The expenditure that is cut, should also cut on revenue (taxes)...
And trust me, those don't cost 10k a year like the public ones. They're actually at least twice as efficient.
I know it's a weird idea, but do let people decide what to do with their money, and they do it quite efficiently! :O
On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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.
They'd go to private hospitals. And if there ain't any, some will be built to serve that demand, which turns into a profit opportunity.
Or the same public hospitals could fulfill that opportunity by simply charging those customers.
On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. And you're for it? 
On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I don't think it's really that much of an issue tbh. But I haven't figured out the incentives for deportation yet.. I can't think of many. It's costly, but cost doesn't matter when you're taxing to pay for it. The illegal aliens cause a greater demand for public services, so the state should actually like them and want them to stay. Not deport them...
And if that's true, then very very little will be done on the state's part about deporting people.
|
What you're failing to understand is that we do pay for them ourselves on the town/city/state/federal levels. Your arguments consistently put the government apart from the people, but you're forgetting that the governments were designed by the people to represent their interests as communities. My neighborhood is a local community and we have a local representative that we elect as well as other people to determine the manner in which neighborhood funds are allocated. My city is a larger community and similarly, we have elected officials that we put into office to represent the interests of our city. The federal government is just a group of people we elect as a united American people to represent the majority of our interests and so on and so forth. You can't put the people in one corner and the government in another. When you say if we want hospitals, roads, bridges, etc., I along with others who benefit from them could pay for it ourselves, you're forgetting that we already do through the taxes we pay to our community. Without taxes, the government would have to power to do anything at all.
Perhaps this may be what you're advocating and it seems to be with your complaint that the government owns land and controls this and that and whatnot, but it's just an impractical way to look at things unless you feel like going back to feudal society where you will inevitably have land owners who answer to nobody and have their own private armies and such. Modern society functions because the government does have these powers and it's the people who give the government these powers with the understanding that it is necessary to protect our interests in the long run.
To say that public services were meant for everyone regardless of their legal status is funny because technically speaking, people aren't supposed to be here unless they are of legal status anyway. So to say that public services were meant to incorporate those in the country illegally is alike saying the movie theater was designed to also accommodate the people who sneak in through the emergency exit without paying. While it ultimately does accommodate for these people (unless they get caught), it was never the intent of the movie theater to do so and none would should they find out that a certain person never purchased a ticket.
And to say that illegal immigrants cause a greater demand for public services so the state should like them is ridiculous. Greater demand for public services means more money required to be taken from the limited budget to pay for those services. It's not a restaurant with more customers. It's an all-you-can-eat buffet where everyone eats a lot more than they otherwise would. There's more money going out, but less money coming in. That's not a good thing for a state or for a business.
|
And wtf where did all these economic anarchists come from? Same people telling you that you should be free to pay workers 2$ an hour are saying the government can tell you not to have an abortion lOl
|
On May 13 2010 11:58 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I'd guess that people would go to private schools then? The expenditure that is cut, should also cut on revenue (taxes)... And trust me, those don't cost 10k a year like the public ones. They're actually at least twice as efficient. I know it's a weird idea, but do let people decide what to do with their money, and they do it quite efficiently! :O Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. They'd go to private hospitals. And if there ain't any, some will be built to serve that demand, which turns into a profit opportunity. Or the same public hospitals could fulfill that opportunity by simply charging those customers. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. And you're for it? Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I don't think it's really that much of an issue tbh. But I haven't figured out the incentives for deportation yet.. I can't think of many. It's costly, but cost doesn't matter when you're taxing to pay for it. The illegal aliens cause a greater demand for public services, so the state should actually like them and want them to stay. Not deport them... And if that's true, then very very little will be done on the state's part about deporting people.
This thread is about illegal immigration, not about government. I want less government too but you should make another thread about that and not derail this one.
|
On May 13 2010 11:53 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. You are making a ridiculous argument. The quality of life in 1890, even with stringent regulations will not be better than the quality of life in 2010. Why? Because of this wonderful thing called technology and innovation.
he wasn't making in argument, he was pointing something out.
and of course life now is better than life then.
The point of the statement was the regulations, if the loosely styled regulations of the late 1800s were enforced today, shit would suck.
|
On May 13 2010 11:45 hacpee wrote:
The government is there to enforce property rights, which is a basic axiom of capitalism. Other services are just tacked on arbitrarily.
Or so they say! 
I don't think it would be necessary for anything! Even law can be accomplished privately. But that's another discussion! Maybe I should make a thread for it but I'm a bit fearful of the responses
On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010.
Apples and oranges?
How about you try to compare 1890 with no regulations to 1890 post-regulations and see if there's any difference there?
Hint: there can't gonna be. Regulations can only restrict, not build. You can't write "USA shall become industrialized" on a piece of paper and expect it to become true. Entrepreneurs and working men (or children for that matter! (I'm not advocating child labor btw)) did that.
On May 13 2010 11:51 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:49 Yurebis wrote: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: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. Well thats another problem to talk about. It doesn't change the fact that the illegals are generally worthless and a drain on our current system.
If they're worthless, how do they pay their rent and buy food?
Someone must have payed them for some service, unless you're saying that most of them just rob people around downtown, which I don't think it's the case. There may be some, and they may even be more prone to, but I don't think it's a large percentage of say, more than ... i don't know, 5%?
|
The main issue for me is not whether or not cracking down on illegal immigration is wrong (because we do need a crackdown), but who's supposed to be doing it. Can a state like Arizona have the jurisdiction to deport illegal immigrants? Discuss.
|
On May 13 2010 12:02 UbOs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:53 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. You are making a ridiculous argument. The quality of life in 1890, even with stringent regulations will not be better than the quality of life in 2010. Why? Because of this wonderful thing called technology and innovation. he wasn't making in argument, he was pointing something out. and of course life now is better than life then.
The point of the statement was the regulations, if the loosely styled regulations of the late 1800s were enforced today, shit would suck.
And what did he use to back up that point? A comparison of 1890 to 2010 which is ridiculous.
|
On May 13 2010 12:06 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:45 hacpee wrote:
The government is there to enforce property rights, which is a basic axiom of capitalism. Other services are just tacked on arbitrarily.
Or so they say! I don't think it would be necessary for anything! Even law can be accomplished privately. But that's another discussion! Maybe I should make a thread for it but I'm a bit fearful of the responses Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. Apples and oranges? How about you try to compare 1890 with no regulations to 1890 post-regulations and see if there's any difference there? Hint: there can't gonna be. Regulations can only restrict, not build. You can't write "USA shall become industrialized" on a piece of paper and expect it to become true. Entrepreneurs and working men (or children for that matter! (I'm not advocating child labor btw)) did that. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:51 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:49 Yurebis wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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. Well thats another problem to talk about. It doesn't change the fact that the illegals are generally worthless and a drain on our current system. If they're worthless, how do they pay their rent and buy food? Someone must have payed them for some service, unless you're saying that most of them just rob people around downtown, which I don't think it's the case. There may be some, and they may even be more prone to, but I don't think it's a large percentage of say, more than ... i don't know, 5%?
They're worthless in that they leech more than they return. They will continue to do so.
|
On May 13 2010 11:59 JinMaikeul wrote:
What you're failing to understand is that we do pay for them ourselves on the town/city/state/federal levels. Your arguments consistently put the government apart from the people, but you're forgetting that the governments were designed by the people to represent their interests as communities. My neighborhood is a local community and we have a local representative that we elect as well as other people to determine the manner in which neighborhood funds are allocated. My city is a larger community and similarly, we have elected officials that we put into office to represent the interests of our city. The federal government is just a group of people we elect as a united American people to represent the majority of our interests and so on and so forth. You can't put the people in one corner and the government in another. When you say if we want hospitals, roads, bridges, etc., I along with others who benefit from them could pay for it ourselves, you're forgetting that we already do through the taxes we pay to our community. Without taxes, the government would have to power to do anything at all. Do the illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? Which taxes are they not paying? Which services are they using that they're not paying? Why not get to the crust of it and ask (+answer) yourself these questions before complaining about freeloading illegal aliens?
Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
On May 13 2010 11:59 JinMaikeul wrote:
Perhaps this may be what you're advocating and it seems to be with your complaint that the government owns land and controls this and that and whatnot, but it's just an impractical way to look at things unless you feel like going back to feudal society where you will inevitably have land owners who answer to nobody and have their own private armies and such. Modern society functions because the government does have these powers and it's the people who give the government these powers with the understanding that it is necessary to protect our interests in the long run.
I just like to keep people honest. 
Once they realize that it's an outrageous idea, the whole statist argument falls...
And that's even regardless of what I say. They'll know it when they'll know it. When there's no demand, the suppliers have to shut down... so if there's no demand for absolute landlords, then there won't be any more absolute landlords any further.
Same with public, unaccounted services.
On May 13 2010 11:59 JinMaikeul wrote:
To say that public services were meant for everyone regardless of their legal status is funny because technically speaking, people aren't supposed to be here unless they are of legal status anyway. So to say that public services were meant to incorporate those in the country illegally is alike saying the movie theater was designed to also accommodate the people who sneak in through the emergency exit without paying. While it ultimately does accommodate for these people (unless they get caught), it was never the intent of the movie theater to do so and none would should they find out that a certain person never purchased a ticket.
The theater wasn't designed to show movies to everyone, it was designed to make a profit
And before you ask, profit isn't a bad motive. I'm not explaining why, here, however.
On May 13 2010 11:59 JinMaikeul wrote:
And to say that illegal immigrants cause a greater demand for public services so the state should like them is ridiculous. Greater demand for public services means more money required to be taken from the limited budget to pay for those services. It's not a restaurant with more customers. It's an all-you-can-eat buffet where everyone eats a lot more than they otherwise would. There's more money going out, but less money coming in. That's not a good thing for a state or for a business.
Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
|
On May 13 2010 12:00 Romantic wrote:
And wtf where did all these economic anarchists come from? Same people telling you that you should be free to pay workers 2$ an hour are saying the government can tell you not to have an abortion lOl
No one would work for $2/hour, and since the supply of workers is limited, the employers are also competing for employees...
And if someone WOULD work for $2/hour, all the minimum wage law is doing is denying them (both employer and employee) the opportunity...
The minimum wage law can't say "you have to employ someone for this much", it can only say "you can't employ someone for this much". See the difference? Regulation can only restrict, not build any type of economic model in reality. Apart for their own public spending mess of course.
On May 13 2010 12:00 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:58 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I'd guess that people would go to private schools then? The expenditure that is cut, should also cut on revenue (taxes)... And trust me, those don't cost 10k a year like the public ones. They're actually at least twice as efficient. I know it's a weird idea, but do let people decide what to do with their money, and they do it quite efficiently! :O On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. They'd go to private hospitals. And if there ain't any, some will be built to serve that demand, which turns into a profit opportunity. Or the same public hospitals could fulfill that opportunity by simply charging those customers. On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. And you're for it? On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I don't think it's really that much of an issue tbh. But I haven't figured out the incentives for deportation yet.. I can't think of many. It's costly, but cost doesn't matter when you're taxing to pay for it. The illegal aliens cause a greater demand for public services, so the state should actually like them and want them to stay. Not deport them... And if that's true, then very very little will be done on the state's part about deporting people. This thread is about illegal immigration, not about government. I want less government too but you should make another thread about that and not derail this one.
Sorry.
On May 13 2010 12:09 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:06 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 11:45 hacpee wrote:
The government is there to enforce property rights, which is a basic axiom of capitalism. Other services are just tacked on arbitrarily.
Or so they say! I don't think it would be necessary for anything! Even law can be accomplished privately. But that's another discussion! Maybe I should make a thread for it but I'm a bit fearful of the responses On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. Apples and oranges? How about you try to compare 1890 with no regulations to 1890 post-regulations and see if there's any difference there? Hint: there can't gonna be. Regulations can only restrict, not build. You can't write "USA shall become industrialized" on a piece of paper and expect it to become true. Entrepreneurs and working men (or children for that matter! (I'm not advocating child labor btw)) did that. On May 13 2010 11:51 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:49 Yurebis wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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. Well thats another problem to talk about. It doesn't change the fact that the illegals are generally worthless and a drain on our current system. If they're worthless, how do they pay their rent and buy food? Someone must have payed them for some service, unless you're saying that most of them just rob people around downtown, which I don't think it's the case. There may be some, and they may even be more prone to, but I don't think it's a large percentage of say, more than ... i don't know, 5%? They're worthless in that they leech more than they return. They will continue to do so.
Well, the store which sells them food and other products doesn't think so, their landlords don't think so, and whoever voluntarily associates with them don't think so. Are they all being conned? Are the illegal aliens paying them with counterfeit money? What are they doing to be able to live here at a net loss for those who they live with?
Are they living off donations only maybe? Even if that were the case, those who are donating are voluntarily giving them that opportunity so... that can't be it. How are they a net loss? And to whom?
|
On May 13 2010 12:21 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:00 Romantic wrote:
And wtf where did all these economic anarchists come from? Same people telling you that you should be free to pay workers 2$ an hour are saying the government can tell you not to have an abortion lOl No one would work for $2/hour, and since the supply of workers is limited, the employers are also competing for employees... And if someone WOULD work for $2/hour, all the minimum wage law is doing is denying them (both employer and employee) the opportunity... The minimum wage law can't say "you have to employ someone for this much", it can only say "you can't employ someone for this much". See the difference? Regulation can only restrict, not build any type of economic model in reality. Apart for their own public spending mess of course. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:00 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:58 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I'd guess that people would go to private schools then? The expenditure that is cut, should also cut on revenue (taxes)... And trust me, those don't cost 10k a year like the public ones. They're actually at least twice as efficient. I know it's a weird idea, but do let people decide what to do with their money, and they do it quite efficiently! :O On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. They'd go to private hospitals. And if there ain't any, some will be built to serve that demand, which turns into a profit opportunity. Or the same public hospitals could fulfill that opportunity by simply charging those customers. On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. And you're for it? On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I don't think it's really that much of an issue tbh. But I haven't figured out the incentives for deportation yet.. I can't think of many. It's costly, but cost doesn't matter when you're taxing to pay for it. The illegal aliens cause a greater demand for public services, so the state should actually like them and want them to stay. Not deport them... And if that's true, then very very little will be done on the state's part about deporting people. This thread is about illegal immigration, not about government. I want less government too but you should make another thread about that and not derail this one. Sorry. Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:09 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:06 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 11:45 hacpee wrote:
The government is there to enforce property rights, which is a basic axiom of capitalism. Other services are just tacked on arbitrarily.
Or so they say! I don't think it would be necessary for anything! Even law can be accomplished privately. But that's another discussion! Maybe I should make a thread for it but I'm a bit fearful of the responses On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. Apples and oranges? How about you try to compare 1890 with no regulations to 1890 post-regulations and see if there's any difference there? Hint: there can't gonna be. Regulations can only restrict, not build. You can't write "USA shall become industrialized" on a piece of paper and expect it to become true. Entrepreneurs and working men (or children for that matter! (I'm not advocating child labor btw)) did that. On May 13 2010 11:51 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:49 Yurebis wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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. Well thats another problem to talk about. It doesn't change the fact that the illegals are generally worthless and a drain on our current system. If they're worthless, how do they pay their rent and buy food? Someone must have payed them for some service, unless you're saying that most of them just rob people around downtown, which I don't think it's the case. There may be some, and they may even be more prone to, but I don't think it's a large percentage of say, more than ... i don't know, 5%? They're worthless in that they leech more than they return. They will continue to do so. Well, the store which sells them food and other products doesn't think so, their landlords don't think so, and whoever voluntarily associates with them don't think so. Are they all being conned? Are the illegal aliens paying them with counterfeit money? What are they doing to be able to live here at a net loss for those who they live with? Are they living off donations only maybe? Even if that were the case, those who are donating are voluntarily giving them that opportunity so... that can't be it. How are they a net loss? And to whom?
Sigh you don't understand? They live off the stupid federal programs. They have a few babies then they can get food stamps and the whole shebang.
|
On May 13 2010 12:02 UbOs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 11:53 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. You are making a ridiculous argument. The quality of life in 1890, even with stringent regulations will not be better than the quality of life in 2010. Why? Because of this wonderful thing called technology and innovation. he wasn't making in argument, he was pointing something out. and of course life now is better than life then. The point of the statement was the regulations, if the loosely styled regulations of the late 1800s were enforced today, shit would suck. Yeah, that was the point. Heavy economic freedom will always disproportionately favor the rich as they hold more economic power to freely exert; just look at the time periods where individuals have little freedom. I don't see how people think allowing power to go to those who are rich instead of elected isn't just replacing one ruling class with another.
Obviously, capitalism works great for most things. Given information and a choice people will make good decisions, but i'll only support that broad claim if people broadly have information and choice (which in areas like healthcare, they don't). Without a free education or welfare they would have little choice and little information.
I see a right and a wrong way for the government to intervene in capitalism. For example:
Good: Force fast food companies to display nutritional information, or have it stated somewhere obvious that if requested it can be accessed. Much like police inform people of their rights when arrested.
Bad: Forcing fast food companies to lower salt\fat content or face fines\penalties based on an arbitrary government health standard.
Bottom line i'd never support a system that did not offer life, education, and personal freedom (personal freedom encompassing both economic and social things) so long as it didn't overtly violate someone else's personal freedom. A completely capitalist economic system will never offer any of those, which is probably why such a system doesn't exist. Unless you are rich, of course.
We also have a slight problem with our economic system encroaching on our political system because of the interests there, but lol this was an immigration thread
|
On May 13 2010 12:25 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:21 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 12:00 Romantic wrote:
And wtf where did all these economic anarchists come from? Same people telling you that you should be free to pay workers 2$ an hour are saying the government can tell you not to have an abortion lOl No one would work for $2/hour, and since the supply of workers is limited, the employers are also competing for employees... And if someone WOULD work for $2/hour, all the minimum wage law is doing is denying them (both employer and employee) the opportunity... The minimum wage law can't say "you have to employ someone for this much", it can only say "you can't employ someone for this much". See the difference? Regulation can only restrict, not build any type of economic model in reality. Apart for their own public spending mess of course. On May 13 2010 12:00 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:58 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I'd guess that people would go to private schools then? The expenditure that is cut, should also cut on revenue (taxes)... And trust me, those don't cost 10k a year like the public ones. They're actually at least twice as efficient. I know it's a weird idea, but do let people decide what to do with their money, and they do it quite efficiently! :O On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. They'd go to private hospitals. And if there ain't any, some will be built to serve that demand, which turns into a profit opportunity. Or the same public hospitals could fulfill that opportunity by simply charging those customers. On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. And you're for it? On May 13 2010 11:24 JinMaikeul wrote:
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. I don't think it's really that much of an issue tbh. But I haven't figured out the incentives for deportation yet.. I can't think of many. It's costly, but cost doesn't matter when you're taxing to pay for it. The illegal aliens cause a greater demand for public services, so the state should actually like them and want them to stay. Not deport them... And if that's true, then very very little will be done on the state's part about deporting people. This thread is about illegal immigration, not about government. I want less government too but you should make another thread about that and not derail this one. Sorry. On May 13 2010 12:09 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 12:06 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 11:45 hacpee wrote:
The government is there to enforce property rights, which is a basic axiom of capitalism. Other services are just tacked on arbitrarily.
Or so they say! I don't think it would be necessary for anything! Even law can be accomplished privately. But that's another discussion! Maybe I should make a thread for it but I'm a bit fearful of the responses On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. Apples and oranges? How about you try to compare 1890 with no regulations to 1890 post-regulations and see if there's any difference there? Hint: there can't gonna be. Regulations can only restrict, not build. You can't write "USA shall become industrialized" on a piece of paper and expect it to become true. Entrepreneurs and working men (or children for that matter! (I'm not advocating child labor btw)) did that. On May 13 2010 11:51 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:49 Yurebis wrote: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:On May 13 2010 11:09 Yurebis wrote:On May 13 2010 10:51 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 10:40 Yurebis wrote:
[quote]
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. Well thats another problem to talk about. It doesn't change the fact that the illegals are generally worthless and a drain on our current system. If they're worthless, how do they pay their rent and buy food? Someone must have payed them for some service, unless you're saying that most of them just rob people around downtown, which I don't think it's the case. There may be some, and they may even be more prone to, but I don't think it's a large percentage of say, more than ... i don't know, 5%? They're worthless in that they leech more than they return. They will continue to do so. Well, the store which sells them food and other products doesn't think so, their landlords don't think so, and whoever voluntarily associates with them don't think so. Are they all being conned? Are the illegal aliens paying them with counterfeit money? What are they doing to be able to live here at a net loss for those who they live with? Are they living off donations only maybe? Even if that were the case, those who are donating are voluntarily giving them that opportunity so... that can't be it. How are they a net loss? And to whom? Sigh you don't understand? They live off the stupid federal programs. They have a few babies then they can get food stamps and the whole shebang.
They're getting free food at a restaurant, which you're paying for whilst not getting any benefit from it yourself. Ok. Why complain about the freeloaders and not the restaurant?
On May 13 2010 12:26 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2010 12:02 UbOs wrote:On May 13 2010 11:53 hacpee wrote:On May 13 2010 11:51 Romantic wrote:
lol, im always amazed when people seem to think the quality of life in 1890 with no regulations and no social safety net is somehow better than 2010. You are making a ridiculous argument. The quality of life in 1890, even with stringent regulations will not be better than the quality of life in 2010. Why? Because of this wonderful thing called technology and innovation. he wasn't making in argument, he was pointing something out. and of course life now is better than life then. The point of the statement was the regulations, if the loosely styled regulations of the late 1800s were enforced today, shit would suck. Yeah, that was the point. Heavy economic freedom will always disproportionately favor the rich as they hold more economic power to freely exert; just look at the time periods where individuals have little freedom. I don't see how people think allowing power to go to those who are rich instead of elected isn't just replacing one ruling class with another. Obviously, capitalism works great for most things. Given information and a choice people will make good decisions, but i'll only support that broad claim if people broadly have information and choice (which in areas like healthcare, they don't). Without a free education or welfare they would have little choice and little information. I see a right and a wrong way for the government to intervene in capitalism. For example: Good: Force fast food companies to display nutritional information, or have it stated somewhere obvious that if requested it can be accessed. Much like police inform people of their rights when arrested. Bad: Forcing fast food companies to lower salt\fat content or face fines\penalties based on an arbitrary government health standard. Bottom line i'd never support a system that did not offer life, education, and personal freedom (personal freedom encompassing both economic and social things) so long as it didn't overtly violate someone else's personal freedom. A completely capitalist economic system will never offer any of those, which is probably why such a system doesn't exist. Unless you are rich, of course. We also have a slight problem with our economic system encroaching on our political system because of the interests there, but lol this was an immigration thread
If there's a demand for x, which a majority of voters, and therefore customers want, wouldn't the companies want to supply x?
I know this is not a politics or economics thread but I find it very hard to argue anything without these concepts...
|
I don't get why enforcing immigration laws is such a big problem. If there is a hispanic guy who doesn't speak english, odds are he is illegal. Yet currently, illegals aren't deported.
People don't understand that this country can only support a limited number of immigrants per year. These illegals crossing the boarder are likely making it difficult for others to get in to the US, such as those from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. How is that fair?
On top of it, there is a strong movement within the illegal hispanic community that is very un-american. For example, all those students who walked out when some kids wore an american flag on cinco de mayo and were sent home...that was a wtf moment for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
