http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
The law is too extreme and will not be enforced due to its unpopularity. I expect the law repealed soon. However, that still leaves the problem of enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. We need to revisit those laws since they aren't being enforced either.
Funny thing is some people fail to separate the idea of "opposing a bad law" vs. "supporting illegal immigration". Just because you do not support this law does not mean you are in favor of illegal immigration.
(didn't watch the vid) Not from AZ, I'm from Ohio, and we have a fair bit of illegals here. Actually, a few years back (3-4) a drunk illegal immigrant and his buddy (maybe legal, at least one was not), crashed their car into my car parked on the street. They were both hammered, and tried to run away from the scene. Police later found them, maybe they were deported, but the insurance company paid for the car (Kelly Blue Book value). Illegals are really just a money sink on society. They receive our benefits, but do not pay taxes.
There's clearly a problem of illegal immigration (especially in AZ), and this is one way to try to stop it. Really, this law doesn't bother me. Sure, if you look illegal, you get stopped and asked to see ID. If you're legal, show them the ID, you're on your way in less than 30 seconds. It's a simple way to try to cut down on illegal immigration, that's all it is. Really, I think they just wanted to get the ball rolling. Get people discussing, get them coming up with better solutions.
I don't understand why people are so upset, sure, they're profiling, but just show them some ID if you're legal and you move on. It happens at airports too. Until there is a better solution, this one seems "good enough" and will get people talking about it, which may have been the intent of lawmakers.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack.
I wish you wouldn't say things like this (both because it's an odd exaggeration and it distracts from the main point) but I agree, seems like a ton of bullshit
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack.
I wish you wouldn't say things like this (both because it's an odd exaggeration and it distracts from the main point) but I agree, seems like a ton of bullshit
Actually, yeah. I missed this, but this is not Nazi Germany. There is no killing. No torture. No genocide. It does not even compare. Not close.
I am really confused as to how illegals in the states get benefits. Someone above mentioned this; when I watched Law and Order this was mentioned countless number of times. Maybe we are talking about different benefits?
In Canada to enroll in schools you need several documents to prove that you are the person you say you are; to get health care you need a health card, which shouldn't be accessible by someone who arrived illegally. To claim employment insurance you need a SIN card.... so unless a person manages to fake all of that (which is pretty hard, I think, because all of them have a number to it, which is probably linked to some databse), I don't see anyone in Canada illegally can get any benefits at all.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack.
I wish you wouldn't say things like this (both because it's an odd exaggeration and it distracts from the main point) but I agree, seems like a ton of bullshit
Actually, yeah. I missed this, but this is not Nazi Germany. There is no killing. No torture. No genocide. It does not even compare. Not close.
You are completely right, but you have to admit, asking for people's papers is kind of their catchphrase.
Some changes have been made to the law since it was first passed. The substantive change is that police can only check for illegal status while enforcing some other law or ordinance. Like if you've been caught speeding. Before, police only had to have reasonable suspicion even if you weren't doing anything else illegal.
On May 12 2010 10:21 jpak wrote: Actually, illegal immigrants do pay taxes in the U.S, so people saying that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes are ignorant.
Just throwing that out there.
Is this because they pay taxes for goods and services?
comparable to Nazi Germany solely because asking citizens for their papers and citizenship. This isn't as extreme or severe as regulated extermination, but to me it rivals the separation and purification techniques. Edited the OP.
I dunno what to think of this, but it seems like a question of giving mexicans the benefit of doubt. Illegal immigration is a big issue, and if previous immigration laws were proven futile, this could be seen as a last resort to really crack down on it
How is any of this bad? They're illegal immigrants. illegal. as in, they're not lawfully in the country/state. They're criminals.
And where does racial profiling come in? It states, and i quote, "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS".
How is it unconstitutional? It basically states "Where a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is a illegal immigrant (criminal), they can ask for ID to confirm." So it basically allows officers to uphold a law that's already in the criminal code.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack.
Waaay off on comparison there.
I support the bill 100%. There's nothing more annoying than dealing with a mexicant who doesn't speak any english at all.
Simply put, this bill is allowing Arizona cops to clean up the streets from all the illegals hopping over and being able to take swift action against them too. It's no different than a cop pulling over for going 5mph over the speed limit at 3am and then asking if he can search your car. It's just now with this law, they can pull you over just because they can.
Racial profiling has been around for an extremely long time, only now has it finally gotten a law to back it up and people are freaking out over it.
On May 12 2010 10:21 jpak wrote: Actually, illegal immigrants do pay taxes in the U.S, so people saying that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes are ignorant.
Just throwing that out there.
Is this because they pay taxes for goods and services?
No, a lot of them actually pay income and payroll taxes, as well as various state and federal taxes. The reason why the numbers seem skewed towards illegal immigrants is because at least 1/3 of them receive their pay "under the table," which does not get taxed. Those who do pay, however, pay a lot more taxes than the benefits they get, which is only emergency care and K-12 education (there was a bill in 1996 that stripped illegal immigrants of all benefits granted to U.S citizens except those 2).
This law is definitely unconstitutional. Reasonable suspicion? I'm sorry, but the only incidents I've read about so far are people being stopped for something arbitrary (speeding, broken tail-light, etc), then being detained because they look Mexican.
I know racial profiling has been around for a long time, but the fact that there's a LAW that is inherently racist in this way just bugs me.
What's worse is that Minnesota legislators are considering it.
On May 12 2010 10:43 Zeke50100 wrote: This law is definitely unconstitutional. Reasonable suspicion? I'm sorry, but the only incidents I've read about so far are people being stopped for something arbitrary (speeding, broken tail-light, etc), then being detained because they look Mexican.
I know racial profiling has been around for a long time, but the fact that there's a LAW that is inherently racist in this way just bugs me.
What's worse is that Minnesota legislators are considering it.
Please tell me how enforcing federal law (specifically related to this law) is in any way unconstitutional.
On May 12 2010 10:43 Zeke50100 wrote: This law is definitely unconstitutional. Reasonable suspicion? I'm sorry, but the only incidents I've read about so far are people being stopped for something arbitrary (speeding, broken tail-light, etc), then being detained because they look Mexican.
I know racial profiling has been around for a long time, but the fact that there's a LAW that is inherently racist in this way just bugs me.
What's worse is that Minnesota legislators are considering it.
Please tell me how enforcing federal law (specifically related to this law) is in any way unconstitutional.
Something about the state trying to do a job that only the federal government is supposed to do.
On May 12 2010 10:17 illu wrote: I am really confused as to how illegals in the states get benefits. Someone above mentioned this; when I watched Law and Order this was mentioned countless number of times. Maybe we are talking about different benefits?
In Canada to enroll in schools you need several documents to prove that you are the person you say you are; to get health care you need a health card, which shouldn't be accessible by someone who arrived illegally. To claim employment insurance you need a SIN card.... so unless a person manages to fake all of that (which is pretty hard, I think, because all of them have a number to it, which is probably linked to some databse), I don't see anyone in Canada illegally can get any benefits at all.
To the above if you are born in the US you are a citizen and get benefits.
If you aren't you just go in for emergency services when you need medical care.
I slightly agree with this law, although it has some issues relating to racial profiling. Among the stupidest quotes I've heard on the issue: "It discriminates against illegal immigrants"
I don't actually know specifics about the law. I would appreciate someone who actually knows the answers to these questions answering them:
Suppose I am pulled over by a cop in Nevada. What do I need to have on me to prove that I am not here illegally? Is just having a drivers license enough, or do I need something further than this? If I need more than a license, the law is complete bullshit, since 95+% of people could be hauled into jail for practically no reason. If all I need is a license, it seems more reasonable, but honestly, you're gonna get fucked in the ass for driving without a license anyway.
Also, what if I am some 16 year old who gets into a situation where police are involved and don't have any form of ID? Are cops allowed to cuff me just for that?
1. This law REQUIRES law enforcement to ask for the identification of an individual who they have "reasonable suspicion" to be an in the country illegally.
2. You can honestly say if a white person and an Hispanic person were both standing in front of a home depot wearing beat up clothes, a cop would ask the white person for their papers. If you can you are living in a fantasy world.
3. Skipping...
4. How would you feel if all of a sudden you were asked for your papers by a cop without reason? P.S. I choose not to follow laws all the time.
5. The term "show me your papers" was made popular by the NAZI party.
6. If it is so "widely known" that the CoP is against this bill then, it won't be enforced at all and is completely meaningless. So why pass it in the first place?
7. Look up your history, it wasn't that long ago that Arizona was mexico.
8. Our state DID NOT pass this. The state government did. With a democratic republic, like we have, we elect the representatives who decide these laws. "Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care." Are you serious? That is a remarkably ignorant way of expressing your opinion.
To all who read:
Pleas don't think that On_Slaught represents the state of Arizona.
I for one am against this bill and all those who support it. I believe this saying will become popular in the coming months..."You can have sex with a 15 year old in Arkansas, the confederate flag is still displayed with pride in the south, and you can't be Hispanic in Arizona."
On May 12 2010 10:50 PJA wrote: Also, what if I am some 16 year old who gets into a situation where police are involved and don't have any form of ID? Are cops allowed to bring cuff me just for that?
On May 12 2010 10:50 PJA wrote: Also, what if I am some 16 year old who gets into a situation where police are involved and don't have any form of ID? Are cops allowed to bring cuff me just for that?
Yes sadly.
If this is true I don't understand how anyone can support this law.
On May 12 2010 10:43 Zeke50100 wrote: This law is definitely unconstitutional. Reasonable suspicion? I'm sorry, but the only incidents I've read about so far are people being stopped for something arbitrary (speeding, broken tail-light, etc), then being detained because they look Mexican.
I know racial profiling has been around for a long time, but the fact that there's a LAW that is inherently racist in this way just bugs me.
What's worse is that Minnesota legislators are considering it.
Please tell me how enforcing federal law (specifically related to this law) is in any way unconstitutional.
Something about the state trying to do a job that only the federal government is supposed to do.
States have the right to police their own land. Just because Arizona happens to border another country doesn't dissolve their right to police their own land. It's not like this law applies to border patrol (a federal force).
On May 12 2010 10:50 PJA wrote: Also, what if I am some 16 year old who gets into a situation where police are involved and don't have any form of ID? Are cops allowed to bring cuff me just for that?
Yes sadly.
They would probably call your parents/guardian to prove identification. They'd be calling them anyway, really. If you get cuffed, it would be for whatever you did wrong in the first place.
On May 12 2010 10:50 PJA wrote: Also, what if I am some 16 year old who gets into a situation where police are involved and don't have any form of ID? Are cops allowed to bring cuff me just for that?
Yes sadly.
They would probably call your parents/guardian to prove identification. They'd be calling them anyway, really. If you get cuffed, it would be for whatever you did wrong in the first place.
Probably isn't really good enough though.
Suppose I get into a fight with a friend, and it happens to be in a public enough place that the police get involved. If we're both white, and clearly not severely injured, we're pretty much both going to get a slap on the wrist at worst, especially if we're both juveniles. Perhaps our parents would get called, but that doesn't even happen most of the time. If one of us is of mexican descent or looks mexican or whatever, under the current law that person would probably be treated very differently, which is blatant racism.
You can blame the cops for letting off white kids too easily and say that it has nothing to do with the law, but when you KNOW racist behavior will result from a law you're basically supporting racism and masking that fact by blaming the police.
No shit, this is racist. But sometimes, racism can be justified. This is one of them. Uncomfortable? Unsavory? Well, illegally immigrating isn't exactly savory either.
This law attempts to allow a State to maintain its rights due to the Federal government's inability or lack of desire to enforce its responsibility on the border with Mexico. The law sounds draconian but in light of the drug civil war in Mexico and its "spillage" into the US it is a measure by a State to protects its lawful citizens. It seems unfair that hard working honest people will suffer but I think the intent is to prevent the civil war from spreading North of the border. The comparison to Nazi Germany are pretty accurate. In the name of security we the American people are destroying our own freedoms and becoming closer and closer to what previous generations have given their lives to stop.
On May 12 2010 10:30 Kaneh wrote: How is any of this bad? They're illegal immigrants. illegal. as in, they're not lawfully in the country/state. They're criminals.
And where does racial profiling come in? It states, and i quote, "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS".
How is it unconstitutional? It basically states "Where a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is a illegal immigrant (criminal), they can ask for ID to confirm." So it basically allows officers to uphold a law that's already in the criminal code.
What the hell, you're completely missing the point. Most of the people who will get harassed by these cops will not be illegal immigrants, they will just be brown.
Anytime someone does anything that a cop finds questionable they are at risk of being questioned. Obviously a cop will only question someone regarding their mexican affiliation based on their looks or accent. In any encounter with a cop, one will always be asked for their personal information (regardless of how that person knows how to handle the situation), so in my opinion, adding that the police can only question someone after a lawful stop is a bullhonkey cover-up of a pigs get out of jail free card. This will result in many wrongful incarcerations. People getting detained with rights to be in America, and others being deported without proper documentation or alibi. Yes, this law enforces an american citizenship, but i believe at the cost of too much racial profiling, and further separation between 2 majorities for a country founded on immigrants.
On May 12 2010 11:35 ragnasaur wrote: Yes, this law enforces an american citizenship, but i believe at the cost of too much racial profiling, and further separation between 2 majorities for a country founded on immigrants.
america was founded by immigrants but it doesnt give the illegal immigrants to sneak in illegally.
the only group in arizona who want this bill to stay a law, are the old republicans with 66%. everyone else is closer to 50%, and some are far below that. not many people here feel like this bill is going to bring _anything_ positive to the state
This law might be a democratic godsend. It alienates a GOP voter bloc, Hispanics. How they will try and explain they are for a balanced budget when the state(s) that pass a law(s) which will obviously be followed by lawsuits, the expenses for holding, travel and deporting illegals, boycotts, and somehow having to explain how they could be stopped because, simply, they look like illegals.
If an inherently racist law is worded in such a way that it seems to be impartial to race, it doesn't matter; it will be used in the intended racist manner. Anything that will result in such blatant racism, despite clever wording, will be killed by the Supreme Court. Unconstitutional. The only reasonable suspicion that can be claimed by the police is how the detainee looks, despite what they may say (area is known for smuggling, or something like that). Refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which, although not a result of a Supreme Court ruling, is a somewhat similar case.
Honestly, how many Canadians do you think will be targets of this? Exactly.
On May 12 2010 10:43 Zeke50100 wrote: This law is definitely unconstitutional. Reasonable suspicion? I'm sorry, but the only incidents I've read about so far are people being stopped for something arbitrary (speeding, broken tail-light, etc), then being detained because they look Mexican.
I know racial profiling has been around for a long time, but the fact that there's a LAW that is inherently racist in this way just bugs me.
What's worse is that Minnesota legislators are considering it.
Please tell me how enforcing federal law (specifically related to this law) is in any way unconstitutional.
exactly. i've read the entire bill last week. nothing in there is unconstitutional. it's going to hold up if it goes to the supreme court, unfortunatly.
1070 is only enforcing a federal law that is already in place
Illegal immigration bothers me for no other reason than the fact that it's incredibly disrespectful and unfair towards the thousand of people spending time and money to enter this country legally each day. I don't understand why it's considered racist not to tolerate it when these people are essentially breaking the law... That being said, this particular law is pretty stupid...
On a side note, even without this law, weren't police able to require people they stop to show ID anyway?
60% of Americans like this bill or think its not tough enough. Per the New York Times. Fact is that we want the illegals out. And don't give me that bullshit about illegals paying taxes. They take more from the system than they will ever get in. If they want to work hard in the US and pay taxes, well there is a long line. They should get in back of it. Its called the LEGAL system. Millions of potentially legal immigrants are waiting to get in. What the illegals did was spit on the legal immigrants and cut the line.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
Except "the people" can only indirectly influence what goes on in the government. Oh, and only a majority is required to be elected, meaning that a fairly large number of people may as well be against it. Is it against the voice of the people if only 60% actually agree with it?
And if that's sarcasm, that's great, but there was another post earlier on regarding the same issue in a non-sarcastic manner XD
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
On May 12 2010 12:57 Zeke50100 wrote: Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
Socialism is a wonderful concept so long as everyone is a willing participant (which is the only way it truly works). The perceived evil part of it comes when it is forcibly imposed on unwilling participants...
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
On May 12 2010 11:42 Zeke50100 wrote: If an inherently racist law is worded in such a way that it seems to be impartial to race, it doesn't matter; it will be used in the intended racist manner. Anything that will result in such blatant racism, despite clever wording, will be killed by the Supreme Court. Unconstitutional. The only reasonable suspicion that can be claimed by the police is how the detainee looks, despite what they may say (area is known for smuggling, or something like that). Refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which, although not a result of a Supreme Court ruling, is a somewhat similar case.
Honestly, how many Canadians do you think will be targets of this? Exactly.
This is dead on.
Posts from On_Slaught and others are completely off target and show severe ignorance of the law. A state does not have free reign to do whatever it wants to secure itself, and I'm loving the whole pro-tyranny of the majority vibe going on here.
What's fun about it is this law is going to completely wreck Arizona's economy and doom the GOP in 2012.
On May 12 2010 12:26 hacpee wrote: 60% of Americans like this bill or think its not tough enough. Per the New York Times. Fact is that we want the illegals out. And don't give me that bullshit about illegals paying taxes. They take more from the system than they will ever get in. If they want to work hard in the US and pay taxes, well there is a long line. They should get in back of it. Its called the LEGAL system. Millions of potentially legal immigrants are waiting to get in. What the illegals did was spit on the legal immigrants and cut the line.
I know many recent immigrants feel this way, my mother included, but it's completely without context of the current situation. Irregular immigration is inevitable and the economy is largely dependent on it. That's why the whole system needs to be revamped.
It's also interesting that people like lOvOlUNiMEDiA can be so staunchly against an overbearing government, until it fits in with the greater GOP agenda.
On May 12 2010 12:41 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
that has got to be the most retarded logic i've ever heard... everyone is entitled to their own opinion on a law, being for or against one doesn't make you a facist
On May 12 2010 11:35 ragnasaur wrote: Yes, this law enforces an american citizenship, but i believe at the cost of too much racial profiling, and further separation between 2 majorities for a country founded on immigrants.
america was founded by immigrants but it doesnt give the illegal immigrants to sneak in illegally.
Huh?
As a Hispanic person I'd be offended if I were asked by law enforcement to show proof of citizenship. I'm sure the law was passed with good intentions in mind but singling out a group of people because of the color of their skin is just wrong.
If proof of citizenship is required of hispanic americans then all americans should have to follow same law. Why should hispanic americans have to do this and nobody else does? Are hispanic americans lesser citizens?
People saying that police officers would need probable cause before they can request proof of citizenship seem a tad bit naive. I can't tell you how many times I've been pulled over while having my cruise control set on 70 on the highway (speed limit) and the officer tells me I was going 77 or 78 (most likely because I live in south Texas and illegal immigration a common occurrence here). If a police officer thinks you're an illegal immigrant or or just wants to pull a brown person over for the fuck of it, he's going to find a reason to do so.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
But because the representatives AS OF NOW voted for it, does that mean you are against the voice of the people? After all, the voice of the people can only be referring to 100% of the people.
Also, the representatives' decisions are not the direct result of the people. It's the voice of the representatives, not the people.
I do not support the law...not because I think it is racist or unconstitutional....but because I think it should be far tougher and on a national level. This law isn't even going to stop illegal activity. There is no point in doing anything unless the borders (in particularly the Mexican border) get completely shut down.
The thing that gets me is these people protesting against the law. I don't even understand how you can possibly protest this unless you think amnesty is a good thing (which to me is ludicrious). What is the solution the protestors are looking for? Open border anarchy?
Lastly, the thing that is most hilarious about this? Go look at Mexico's illegal immigrant law and what they do to those people and get back to me. The US is ridiculous in comparison.
If you are against this law then you are against the voice of the people. If you are against this law you are against democracy. If you are against this law you are a right-wing fascist.
I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
But because the representatives AS OF NOW voted for it, does that mean you are against the voice of the people? After all, the voice of the people can only be referring to 100% of the people.
Also, the representatives' decisions are not the direct result of the people. It's the voice of the representatives, not the people.
You are hilarious! Yes, laws only apply if 100% of all citizens agree! Haha!
So you are arguing against a republic and for direct democracy. That is fine. Ill agree. But Direct democracy can still vote for a law like this. And i assume that you would still be opposed to it. So you are fascist.
On May 12 2010 12:52 Mystlord wrote: [quote] I pray that that's a sarcastic statement. Just because the people will it doesn't mean that it's right. Case in point, slavery.
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Socialism is arguably one of the greatest economic ideas ever, but people think socialism means evil. Does that mean being a socialist is evil?
So you must believe that there is some kind of objective moral truth. And you must also presumably believe that you have a means of gaining knowledge of that truth. I'd appreciate it if you explain what that truth is and how you know it
Nope. All I did was kill your argument.
Yeah. You really killed it.
Alright, it wasn't the greatest example >.> Here's another one:
Being against big business means you're liberal. If you're against big business, you're communist.
I was using a definition of fascist that was something along the lines of: "someone supporting a political view that defends some version of minority rule or anti-democracy"
If AZ citizens dont like this law, vote in representatives who will get rid of it. That is democracy.
But because the representatives AS OF NOW voted for it, does that mean you are against the voice of the people? After all, the voice of the people can only be referring to 100% of the people.
Also, the representatives' decisions are not the direct result of the people. It's the voice of the representatives, not the people.
You are hilarious! Yes, laws only apply if 100% of all citizens agree! Haha!
So you are arguing against a republic and for direct democracy. That is fine. Ill agree. But Direct democracy can still vote for a law like this. And i assume that you would still be opposed to it. So you are fascist.
What the heck are you on about? You said that being against the law was being against the voice of the people, which is blatantly untrue. Yes, democracy is the result of a majority vote, but it is NOT the overall belief in a nation.
Check out the election of 2000. Was Bush becoming president representative of the people? Well, it's hard to tell, seeing as how LESS PEOPLE wanted him. Would one be a fascist if they disliked Bush?
I'm not criticizing your idea of democracy - at least, to a certain extent. What I disagree with is the fact that you think a 50.000001% vote is enough to be called the "voice of the people," which can only refer to all of the citizens as a whole.
(1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
On May 12 2010 13:09 StarMasterX wrote: I do not support the law...not because I think it is racist or unconstitutional....but because I think it should be far tougher and on a national level. This law isn't even going to stop illegal activity. There is no point in doing anything unless the borders (in particularly the Mexican border) get completely shut down.
That would just result in widespread discrimination. The thought of being forced to provide proof of citizenship or be detained is enraging. I'm a legit American citizen who just so happens to be hispanic; that means I get to be treated differently? Awesome.
The thing that gets me is these people protesting against the law. I don't even understand how you can possibly protest this unless you think amnesty is a good thing (which to me is ludicrious). What is the solution the protestors are looking for? Open border anarchy?
How about creating a law which doesn't discriminate against millions of americans?
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
I'd wager that most everyone (if not everyone) who calls this bill racist is actively (or subconsciously) falling back on being politically correct. The fact is that Arizona borders Mexico. This is a statement of fact. It is a fact that thousands, if not millions of Mexicans cross illegally into the state every year. It is a fact that this is illegal.
What follows from this only makes logical sense. Even if the law specifically said "target mexicans' it would only make the law more effective since anyone who doesn't think they don't make up 99% of the illegal immigration into the state is fooling themselves.
Having said that it is hard to maintain that sort of profiling as equitable to the citizens who are of Mexican background. However if anything this law will prompt change from Washington that is long overdue. Weighed against a national issue that has translated into a matter of national security, taking extreme actions are necessary at this point.
TBH tho... It would probably be more effective and cheaper (relative to this virtual wall bullshit) to literally build a stone wall across our border (ala Hadrians Wall).
On the Democracy issue, what is moral is a social construct. Since we have no objective judge for what is right the best possible determinant is what an informed majority thinks. Now you can contend whether or not people are informed but most seem to understand that this is a real issue that is creating real problems in our country.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
Right. I already covered this when I said we were both simply arguing for direct democracy. Then I gave the example of a direct democractic vote that imposes the AZ law and asked if you WOULD STILL be opposed. If so, then I said youd be a fascist in my book.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
Right. I already covered this when I said we were both simply arguing for direct democracy. Then I gave the example of a direct democractic vote that imposes the AZ law and asked if you WOULD STILL be opposed. If so, then I said youd be a fascist in my book.
But that's not an opposition to the principle of democracy. As I am a person, and people are entitled to have their own opinions, I think the choice made would be wrong. I would, however, agree that because it is a democracy, it would be in the best interest to pass the law - not because I believed the effects were good, but because I believe maintaining the democracy would be best.
Fascism, under your definition (which, by the way, is incorrect), is the opposition to democracy itself, not the results of it.
I am absolutely fine with democracy itself, but the actual issues I might not. You're trying to say that somebody who disagrees with ".999... = 1" even though it's widely accepted by experts on the matter does not agree with math at all, which is a false "equation"
On May 12 2010 10:17 illu wrote: I am really confused as to how illegals in the states get benefits. Someone above mentioned this; when I watched Law and Order this was mentioned countless number of times. Maybe we are talking about different benefits?
In Canada to enroll in schools you need several documents to prove that you are the person you say you are; to get health care you need a health card, which shouldn't be accessible by someone who arrived illegally. To claim employment insurance you need a SIN card.... so unless a person manages to fake all of that (which is pretty hard, I think, because all of them have a number to it, which is probably linked to some databse), I don't see anyone in Canada illegally can get any benefits at all.
We are very well handled, if you try to enforce immigration you end getting the ear full of your grand parents were immigrants as far as schools and stuff. I have a friend in California that say its pretty common for the parent to be illegal and most of the time the child be a born citizen so they can go to school but most do not pay taxes. Also hospitals can not deny life saving services to anyone. Also what is employment insurance? Is it better health insurance or like life insurance.
On May 12 2010 13:24 On_Slaught wrote: Let me play devils advocate here...
I'd wager that most everyone (if not everyone) who calls this bill racist is actively (or subconsciously) falling back on being politically correct.
I don't care about political correctness. I just happen to be educated on immigration. It's a rarity on TL.
What follows from this only makes logical sense. Even if the law specifically said "target mexicans' it would only make the law more effective since anyone who doesn't think they don't make up 99% of the illegal immigration into the state is fooling themselves.
No? First of all, its a state encroaching on federal jurisdiction. It's immediately unconstitutional right there. Second, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS? PROBABLY CAUSE IS NOT SKIN COLOR.
On the Democracy issue, what is moral is a social construct. Since we have no objective judge for what is right the best possible determinant is what an informed majority thinks. Now you can contend whether or not people are informed but most seem to understand that this is a real issue that is creating real problems in our country.
They're not. This is an issue that scores easy political points, until local tax rates go up in Arizona, police response rate goes down, and the overall Arizona economy sinks because businesses don't want to operate there. It's shortsighted and stupid.
On May 12 2010 13:16 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: (1) so you want to get rid of all nations // all forms of decentralized government and have the world population vote on all laws of a new world government?
(2) call it whatever the fuck you want. if 50..........1% is what gets the most votes than that is the law and, thus, that is what is moral. Disagree? Answer the question I asked you 5 posts ago... what is objective moral truth and how do you know it?
1. No.
2. No.
I'm NOT against democracy; I'm against the way you described it.
Oh, and I happen to be pretty liberal.
OK, I agree that the "voice of the people" doesn't exist or exists about a very few things. Hell, not even everyone agrees the earth is round.
Democracy is whatever gets the most votes rules for a given location. If AZ immigration law got the most votes its democratic. If you think thats wrong you think democracy is wrong.
I dont care if you are liberal or a nazi. I'll juts continue calling you a fascist if you are against democracy.
Nope. If I think it's wrong, I think the choice made by the legislators is wrong, NOT the principle of democracy.
Right. I already covered this when I said we were both simply arguing for direct democracy. Then I gave the example of a direct democractic vote that imposes the AZ law and asked if you WOULD STILL be opposed. If so, then I said youd be a fascist in my book.
But that's not an opposition to the principle of democracy. As I am a person, and people are entitled to have their own opinions, I think the choice made would be wrong. I would, however, agree that because it is a democracy, it would be in the best interest to pass the law - not because I believed the effects were good, but because I believe maintaining the democracy would be best.
Fascism, under your definition (which, by the way, is incorrect), is the opposition to democracy itself, not the results of it.
I am absolutely fine with democracy itself, but the actual issues I might not. You're trying to say that somebody who disagrees with ".999... = 1" even though it's widely accepted by experts on the matter does not agree with math at all, which is a false "equation"
I agree with you statix, it is unfortunate that the law opts for racial profiling to justify itself. I love this county and I'm an immigrant from Peru who is a proud american now. I have work with ilegals and let me tell you they pay taxes, work hard, do the jobs the no one else would do(fields). Kicking millions of people out of the country is not the solution to this problem.. I don't know the solution I hope there is one but you have to remember people some of these illegals have families now and we will be breaking families if we kicking them out too.
What follows from this only makes logical sense. Even if the law specifically said "target mexicans' it would only make the law more effective since anyone who doesn't think they don't make up 99% of the illegal immigration into the state is fooling themselves.
No? First of all, its a state encroaching on federal jurisdiction. It's immediately unconstitutional right there. Second, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS? PROBABLY CAUSE IS NOT SKIN COLOR.
On the Democracy issue, what is moral is a social construct. Since we have no objective judge for what is right the best possible determinant is what an informed majority thinks. Now you can contend whether or not people are informed but most seem to understand that this is a real issue that is creating real problems in our country.
They're not. This is an issue that scores easy political points, until local tax rates go up in Arizona, police response rate goes down, and the overall Arizona economy sinks because businesses don't want to operate there. It's shortsighted and stupid.
If the state is suffering economically and structually (deaths, lawlessness etc) and they feel they can prevent it by such matters it is NOT encroaching on Fedral jurisdiction. This law does not force Border Patrol agents to change their measures but just state run officials. They are NOT increasing border security and are NOT changing policy about how the government should protect the border... they are ONLY addressing in-state and state-related issues.
There are many ways to interpret the 4th amendment. For starters these searches would not be "unreasonable" in the context of Arizona's situation. The government can already request the immigration status of anybody without asking their permission and this just an extension of that. The violation under this law would be requesting the "papers" of a random person. However all this law does is, if you have suspicion, require that an Officer ASK if someone is a citizen. If from this they have further suspicion on the matter this law would prevent them from taking your papers without your consent. However the law specifically says that their immigration status would be determined WITH the federal government pursuant to 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). Basically it means we find out who you are, contact the government to see if you are a citizen and if not certain procedures are taken. Finding out who you are is nothing new and cops have always been allowed to request personal information from names to drivers liscense. Now if you have no way of identifiying yourself or have no liscense then this potentially opens a new list (like you going to jail if driving) which would eventually lead to finding out your status anyone.
You are severly overestimating the impact this will have on the state (economically). The entire Phoenix metro area (one of the largest cities in the US) said they would lose 90m over 5 years. Is that significant? Not really. Does it hurt? Yes. However I have no doubt things will calm down since it isn't unnatural for people to make blind knee-jerk reactions to hot topic things. A year from now noone will give a shit and they will find the next thing to be angry about.
@On_Slaught: The state law specifically states (hehe) that it is directed towards illegal immigrants. It is never a state's duty to take immigration into their own hands.
On May 12 2010 14:14 Romantic wrote: If your hand needs to be held then its a waste of my time
Well one would just assume that you conclusion follows from the facts you provided. It doesn't. Therefore it's a reasonable question. Perhaps it would be a waste of time though since fallacies are generally hard to defend.
On May 12 2010 14:16 Zeke50100 wrote: @On_Slaught: The state law specifically states (hehe) that it is directed towards illegal immigrants. It is never a state's duty to take immigration into their own hands.
Where? All I see in the text is that if you determine someone to be a potential illegal you basically find out if he (with the governments help) is then you hand him over. At no point did you infring upon their judrisdiction. Hell, people would probably chastise police if they knew someone was an illegal immigrant and let him go.
On May 12 2010 14:20 Romantic wrote: Ah yeah because stating the laws are enforced as they are written completely falsifies this being a racist reactionary law
pro tl debate skills
Since i'm bored i'll bite. You never laid out why it was racist or reactionary. If you think it's racist then either 1. your right and it will be effective or 2. you think police officers are racist pigs. As far as reactionary my original point still stands. REACTION TO WHAT. If we accept your fact that Obama has been significantly more effective at controlling illegal immigration then why would a state feel the need to pass this? It simply doesn't follow.
The government fails its job to secure the border, and Arizona suffers, and so do the people.
These people who you are defending are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, they are ILLEGAL, not supposed to be there. People who stick up for illegal immigrants are the same people who agree that Terrorists should have the same rights as Americans and be prosecuted like us, meanwhile they chop our fucking heads off with dull axes on National TV.
Get a grip world, the law DOES NOT state that they can just ARREST ANY PERSON WHO LOOKS LIKE A MEXICAN, they still need to be doing something suspicious. Obama sucks ass, and so does our Government, so the State must do what it has to. End of story.
Stop saying Racism and all this non-sense. Read the fucking law.
On May 12 2010 11:13 phosphorylation wrote: No shit, this is racist. But sometimes, racism can be justified. This is one of them. Uncomfortable? Unsavory? Well, illegally immigrating isn't exactly savory either.
On May 11 2010 18:40 phosphorylation wrote: i don't see how xenophobia can be anything more than an significant annoyance in any case, it beats out flat-out racism, which you will find is directed against koreans (and asians) in parts of europe and america...
Do two different people use your account, or something?
On May 12 2010 14:30 v3chr0 wrote: The government fails its job to secure the border, and Arizona suffers, and so do the people.
These people who you are defending are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, they are ILLEGAL, not supposed to be there. People who stick up for illegal immigrants are the same people who agree that Terrorists should have the same rights as Americans and be prosecuted like us, meanwhile they chop our fucking heads off with dull axes on National TV.
Get a grip world, the law DOES NOT state that they can just ARREST ANY PERSON WHO LOOKS LIKE A MEXICAN, they still need to be doing something suspicious. Obama sucks ass, and so does our Government, so the State must do what it has to. End of story.
Stop saying Racism and all this non-sense. Read the fucking law.
Last I checked, looking Mexican in an area that happened to be a "popular" smuggling area was doing something suspicious.
Last I checked, looking Mexican in an area that happened to be a "popular" smuggling area was doing something suspicious.
Yea because using hypothetical situations is just like real life. If you are a Mexican, and an illegal one, you DESERVE to be harassed hanging out in an area that is known for smuggling, and a STATE KNOWN FOR HAVING TONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
These people are NOT supposed to be here in the first place, if 1/5 Mexicans has to be harassed to get 4 illegals out, it's not racism and nor is it anything else but law enforcement.
Last I checked, looking Mexican in an area that happened to be a "popular" smuggling area was doing something suspicious.
Yea lets just use hypothetical situations to make this work. If you are a Mexican, and an illegal one, you DESERVE to be harassed hanging out in an area that is known for smuggling, and a STATE KNOWN FOR HAVING TONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
OK. You go find me 1,000 illegals and demand their "papers" without finding ONE US citizen and I'll think about it.
Then again, if you could do that you didn't need this law anyway, eh?
On May 12 2010 14:10 On_Slaught wrote: If the state is suffering economically and structually (deaths, lawlessness etc) and they feel they can prevent it by such matters it is NOT encroaching on Fedral jurisdiction. This law does not force Border Patrol agents to change their measures but just state run officials. They are NOT increasing border security and are NOT changing policy about how the government should protect the border... they are ONLY addressing in-state and state-related issues.
First of all, it explicitly encroaches on federal jurisdiction. I'm not really sure how to explain that any clearer. Napolitano has said as much. Second, there was one stupid case of violence that was used to gain a moral majority, without any research supporting the notion that irregular migrants cause more crime (besides the actual border crossing part.) The available research shows the opposite.
There are many ways to interpret the 4th amendment. For starters these searches would not be "unreasonable" in the context of Arizona's situation.
No, they very much still are. The scope of probable cause has been extended so much in this case. It's no longer the government requesting identification when you're involved in a crime. The crime being pursued is now illegal immigration, so they can ask for any reason and justify it with that.
You are severly overestimating the impact this will have on the state (economically). The entire Phoenix metro area (one of the largest cities in the US) said they would lose 90m over 5 years. Is that significant? Not really. Does it hurt? Yes. However I have no doubt things will calm down since it isn't unnatural for people to make blind knee-jerk reactions to hot topic things. A year from now noone will give a shit and they will find the next thing to be angry about.
the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.”
Moreover, the “2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion ($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.”
Arizona is hugely dependent on immigrants, regular and irregular, and many of them don't want to live there anymore. That's a budding disaster. If the law were 100% effective, it would actually be worse for its economy. Losing 500,000 low paid workers from the current rebuilding project will just make everything else more expensive.
OK. You go find me 1,000 illegals and demand their "papers" without finding ONE US citizen and I'll think about it.
Then again, if you could do that you didn't need this law anyway, eh?
They are illegals... they don't have papers. They don't belong in America, with all our rights and all you stupid bastards to defend them.
How do you think all these immigrants feel that there are so many illegals and they had to go through the system? It's quite un-fair for some to have to become citizens when you can just be an illegal and have all the assholes and idiots of America to stand up for you.
Last I checked, looking Mexican in an area that happened to be a "popular" smuggling area was doing something suspicious.
Yea because using hypothetical situations is just like real life. If you are a Mexican, and an illegal one, you DESERVE to be harassed hanging out in an area that is known for smuggling, and a STATE KNOWN FOR HAVING TONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
These people are NOT supposed to be here in the first place, if 1/5 Mexicans has to be harassed to get 4 illegals out, it's not racism and nor is it anything else but law enforcement.
Not hypothetical. It's a real-life situation. It actually happened.
If you are a Mexican, you do NOT deserve to be harassed because you are in an area known for smuggling, especially because the only reason you'd even be suspected of being illegal would be a racist stereotype.
Oh, and they turned out to be legal.
Nobody is defending illegal immigrants - at least, not directly. We're defending the Constitution, we're defending PEOPLE from blatant racism. It doesn't even matter if they are actually illegal immigrants, because LOOKING like a Mexican will net you a detainment until further notice. We might as well be defending the LEGAL immigrants who are punished because they LOOK Mexican.
It's quite unfair to punish legal immigrants because of the fact that they LOOK like illegal ones. I cannot express the work "Look" enough. It's appearance. It's inherently stereotypical (and, in this context, racism).
How is that not racist? Or do you advocate racism?
OK. You go find me 1,000 illegals and demand their "papers" without finding ONE US citizen and I'll think about it.
Then again, if you could do that you didn't need this law anyway, eh?
They are illegals... they don't have papers. They don't belong in America, with all our rights and all you stupid bastards to defend them.
How do you think all these immigrants feel that there are so many illegals and they had to go through the system? It's quite un-fair for some to have to become citizens when you can just be an illegal and have all the assholes and idiots of America to stand up for you.
Not hypothetical. It's a real-life situation. It actually happened.
If you are a Mexican, you do NOT deserve to be harassed because you are in an area known for smuggling, especially because the only reason you'd even be suspected of being illegal would be a racist stereotype.
Oh, and they turned out to be legal.
Great, and what does that non-illegal person suffer? Nothing.
OK. You go find me 1,000 illegals and demand their "papers" without finding ONE US citizen and I'll think about it.
Then again, if you could do that you didn't need this law anyway, eh?
They are illegals... they don't have papers. They don't belong in America, with all our rights and all you stupid bastards to defend them.
How do you think all these immigrants feel that there are so many illegals and they had to go through the system? It's quite un-fair for some to have to become citizens when you can just be an illegal and have all the assholes and idiots of America to stand up for you.
Ever wondered how the guy felt who lost his job because he couldnt show his birth certificate to the officer who pulled him over for no reason and he couldn't make his delivery on time because he got sent to jail for 6 hours? oh, probably not. Funny how that works.
Only men watch child porn. I say we search you every time you go in public for porn. You are all for this, right? I mean, Child molesters always have mustaches, lets profile based on that.
Not hypothetical. It's a real-life situation. It actually happened.
If you are a Mexican, you do NOT deserve to be harassed because you are in an area known for smuggling, especially because the only reason you'd even be suspected of being illegal would be a racist stereotype.
Oh, and they turned out to be legal.
Great, and what does that non-illegal person suffer? Nothing.
Good point, seriously.
Imagine you're a legal immigrant, and you are stopped. Every. 3 minutes. Of your life. Because you look Mexican.
I get stopped when I'm in a bad neighborhood, it's happened 3 times in the past month. I'm white, I'm the last person in the world a cop would stop, yes it fucking sucks to have your time wasted by cops, but it's for a good reason.
Solution: Don't look like you're carrying guns and crack, and stay away from those neighborhoods, if you can't do either of those, well hey - you're GOING to get harassed not because of YOURSELF but because of the general population. Stereotypes and profiling HAS to exist for cops to do their job right. EVERYONE profiles, EVERYONE stereotypes.
Tho it might be hard to tell, I am not conservative on most issues and I hate most republicans. Therefore while I defend the law and the message it sends to tighten the borders I actually think there should be a process for nationalization for those already in the country. Perhaps the timing is arbitrary but it seems clear that there is already a significant amount of illegals in the country who are hard workers who could become citizens.
Back on point, I agree with Governor Brewer that any impact will be greatly mitigated by the fact that not everyone is against this. Considering it is clear that more than half the country is for this bill we have no reason to believe this wouldn't translate to companies and small business. Just because those leaving are the most vocal doesn't mean there isn't plenty of business still comming to Arizona. Also it would be naive to think that businessmen care more about making a moral stance then making money. If they can make money here then damn be the law. On top of this non-political worker orginizations (unions) can't think this is pragmatically bad since this can only mean better wages for workers. I still think this fad of hating Arizona will dwindle as time passes too.
My argument concerning the 4th amendment remains tenable since the procedure isn't changing the law.
As far as the constitutionality goes, the courts will have to decide. However I still think it will stand considering all the steps in the process that involve the actual immigration status of someone are carried on the federal level. Basically the state just sends the suspects.
On May 12 2010 15:01 Zealotdriver wrote: V3chr0, what have you done to earn citizenship in the United States?
He was born white.
I was born in America. White too if racism is your recurring theme.
No, you were born in America white. Easy to preach about how people shouldn't care if their government questions their citizenship based on color when you're a majority. Just about the same way its easy to spew bullshit about America isn't a secularized country when you're in a majority Christian faith.
On May 12 2010 15:11 v3chr0 wrote: THERE IS NO "BASED ON COLOR", IT'S BASED ON SUSPICION! Lord in heaven, Jesus Christ, repel the ignorance of these people.
Anyway, I'm done dealing with e-diots.
How else to you suspect someone of not being a citizen?
On May 12 2010 15:11 v3chr0 wrote: THERE IS NO "BASED ON COLOR", IT'S BASED ON SUSPICION! Lord in heaven, Jesus Christ, repel the ignorance of these people.
Edit: Jibba, it's called friends and the media.
Anyway, I'm done dealing with e-diots.
The suspicion is that they are a different color. It's as simple as that. Just because the wording of the law CLAIMS it is for reasonable suspicion doesn't mean that it isn't just simple stereotypes.
On May 12 2010 15:19 v3chr0 wrote: Definitely bro, My Mom dropped a 6 pool and I was out by 9 supply.
Don't be mad at me because your Father didn't pull out in time.
I'm trying to get you to think about what it means to be a citizen. How do you interact with the society and economy around you? Do you vote? Do you work? Do you help build your community? Do you volunteer anywhere? Do you discuss politics with people in real life without resorting to insults as you do on the internet?
What makes one person more worthy of the privileges associated with citizenship than another? Do you really believe geographic location of the mother's vagina is the best measure of a person?
You make a good point Zealot, maybe one day Human kind will be enlightened enough to make decisions based upon what you said, but till that happens, being a citizen and not being one are the only details considered.
Ok who cares if the officers show some prejudice? The law states that if you have valid ID from any state, the officers can let you go. All you need is sate or federally authorized ID. I'm sure most of you carry around your drivers license. This will help to stop illegal migration because the illegals don't have the documents. Plain and simple. Will 1 or 2 our of hundreds of thousands be wronged? Maybe. But there is a flaw in every law.
The point is that we need to get rid of the illegals fast, no matter how long they have been here. These people multiply fast and are draining the budgets of states.You have an illegal male and female come and they will multiply fast. 9-10 babies later, you have the state handing out thousands of dollars to take care of these anchor babies. You have public schools forced to provide schooling for the anchor babies. This isn't racial. This is economic. The US just can't afford to take in all of Mexico's poor residents. We have enough poor people to support as it is.
Perhaps a few exceptions can be made for illegals that are wealthy and have had successful businesses. They can stay, but all the day laborers and others who are stealing US jobs need to GTFO.
On May 12 2010 15:55 v3chr0 wrote: You make a good point Zealot, maybe one day Human kind will be enlightened enough to make decisions based upon what you said, but till that happens, being a citizen and not being one are the only details considered.
Ah, how did I guess. Another good vs evil, there-is-no-gray person. Good to know.
On May 12 2010 15:19 v3chr0 wrote: Definitely bro, My Mom dropped a 6 pool and I was out by 9 supply.
Don't be mad at me because your Father didn't pull out in time.
I'm trying to get you to think about what it means to be a citizen. How do you interact with the society and economy around you? Do you vote? Do you work? Do you help build your community? Do you volunteer anywhere? Do you discuss politics with people in real life without resorting to insults as you do on the internet?
What makes one person more worthy of the privileges associated with citizenship than another? Do you really believe geographic location of the mother's vagina is the best measure of a person?
Heres the thing. if you were born in the US, you lucked out. Everyone else who was born in a 3rd world country. too bad for them. They got the short end of the stick. They need to live with that. If all the poor people from the 3rd world countries, no matter how hard working they were, were allowed to come to the US, the country would be a shithole. Our GDP would plummet extremely fast. We wouldn't be able to support all of them. Thats why we need to make a stand and prevent any more illegals from coming into the US.
Wait, aren't Mexicans indigenous people? How is it that northern natives (american indians) have received land reservations when southern natives (mexicans) haven't received any benefits? Also aren't mexicans and native indians that of the same people? Didn't they both cross the bering strait together and diverged into different routes once they appeared on the continent?
But of course the spaniards colonized the southern inhabitants which created a mixture of native/spanish/indian/filippino the people you see today residing in latin america. I am not going to point fingers but europeans are being very hypocritical when they immigrated into this continent by illegally sailing here on the mayflower.
Anyone with a history master's degree can you explain this please?
On May 12 2010 13:21 statix wrote:That would just result in widespread discrimination. The thought of being forced to provide proof of citizenship or be detained is enraging. I'm a legit American citizen who just so happens to be hispanic; that means I get to be treated differently? Awesome.
They are only asking for things that most people carry on them anyways. All I keep hearing are cries of racism. Let me ask you this...how do you propose they solve the problem?
How about creating a law which doesn't discriminate against millions of americans?
I am against the law for a number of reasons, but to compare it to Nazi Germany is a sickening and ignorant comparison.
Sure, because what happened in Germany in the 1930s is SO much like being pulled over and asked for your fucking documentation. The bottom line is that racial profiling is a good indicator if someone is an illegal immigrant or not. Go look up the stats on the number of illegal immigrants, now go look at the racial breakdown, see any fucking patterns?
On May 12 2010 17:00 Sins wrote: Wait, aren't Mexicans indigenous people? How is it that northern natives (american indians) have received land reservations when southern natives (mexicans) haven't received any benefits? Also aren't mexicans and native indians that of the same people? Didn't they both cross the bering strait together and diverged into different routes once they appeared on the continent?
But of course the spaniards colonized the southern inhabitants which created a mixture of native/spanish/indian/filippino the people you see today residing in latin america. I am not going to point fingers but europeans are being very hypocritical when they immigrated into this continent by illegally sailing here on the mayflower.
Anyone with a history master's degree can you explain this please?
Yes, Mexicans are indigenous people, but they decided to try and form a nation, fought the U.S. numerous times, and lost. Unlike the Native Americans, who really shouldn't be classified as such because it is an incredibly non-descriptive title, who had their entire territory swallowed by the U.S., thus losing all of their rights to self governance and have since suffered tremendously. Also, if you want to say that the Mexicans have received no benefits, I would ask you to look into the amount of aid that Mexico has received over the years versus how much aid the "Native Americans" have received over the years. If you want to call them the same people, go ahead, but we are all African, so it is a slippery slope as far as that argument goes.
Now, as for the Spanish (and Portuguese) colonising (but mostly mining) Southern and Central America, there was certainly a mix created, but it must be remembered that most of South America remains visibly identifiable as a result of their "pure" (rofl) heritage.
As for your comments on "illegally sailing here on the mayflower"... Firstly, why was it illegal? Secondly, why are you bringing up a ship that has little to no significance, especially in this debate? Thirdly, why on earth did you think that someone with a history degree would have to explain this?
On May 12 2010 14:10 On_Slaught wrote: If the state is suffering economically and structually (deaths, lawlessness etc) and they feel they can prevent it by such matters it is NOT encroaching on Fedral jurisdiction. This law does not force Border Patrol agents to change their measures but just state run officials. They are NOT increasing border security and are NOT changing policy about how the government should protect the border... they are ONLY addressing in-state and state-related issues.
First of all, it explicitly encroaches on federal jurisdiction. I'm not really sure how to explain that any clearer. Napolitano has said as much. Second, there was one stupid case of violence that was used to gain a moral majority, without any research supporting the notion that irregular migrants cause more crime (besides the actual border crossing part.) The available research shows the opposite.
I'm quite sure this is true and I'm glad somebody brought it up.
I don't want to derail the thread or anything, but so frequently the case against illegal immigration is made on the grounds that illegal immigrants are more criminally inclined and cause instability and violence because they get here and start committing crimes as a result of poverty. Illegal immigrants also supposedly cause a burden on taxpayers because almost nobody in poverty is a net tax-payer, and illegal immigrants are still extended some free government services. I realize there are other reasons like destabilizing the labor market, but the crime and taxes reasons seem to really hit people. I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. If they get arrested and jailed, they're highly likely to be deported. I'd contest that illegal immigrants are less prone to crime because the legal consequences are much higher. The have more incentive to lay low and not piss off Johnny Law.
Now their offspring are an entirely different story. Children of illegal immigrants don't have things too good. Their parents probably weren't too bright to begin with and it's unlikely they'll fair well in the genetic lottery. Their parents often have multiple kids they can't really support or give sufficient attention to. The kids often going to grow up in bad neighborhoods with bad schools nearby and not get much quality attention and guidance with their parents who are off working. They seem to frequently adopt underclass ghetto values, and with few life prospects ahead of them having been born into poverty, it's probably not an outlandish claim to say that this group is more criminally inclined.
The increased tax dollars spent as a result of more illegal immigrants are further not spent on the immigrants themselves, but once again their children. Children plainly and simply are going to make more use of tax-payer funded services, most especially public education. People who whine about the tax burdens of increased illegal immigration might have it a little wrong, it's the illegal immigrants having so many children they can't support which is really responsible. I'd be really curious to see some statistics on the birth/fertility rates by race, citizenship status, and socio-economic placement.
Maybe instead of combating illegal immigration to reduce crime/burdens on tax payers, which sound like the whole reasons for combating illegal immigration in the first place we should be combating stupid and/or poor people (of any race, and not just immigrant populations) from having so many kids they can't support or raise properly.
On May 12 2010 17:00 Sins wrote: Wait, aren't Mexicans indigenous people? How is it that northern natives (american indians) have received land reservations when southern natives (mexicans) haven't received any benefits? Also aren't mexicans and native indians that of the same people? Didn't they both cross the bering strait together and diverged into different routes once they appeared on the continent?
But of course the spaniards colonized the southern inhabitants which created a mixture of native/spanish/indian/filippino the people you see today residing in latin america. I am not going to point fingers but europeans are being very hypocritical when they immigrated into this continent by illegally sailing here on the mayflower.
Anyone with a history master's degree can you explain this please?
Why do the Indians receive special treatment? No fucking clue. We should take away that special treatment. We won all the land fair and square, through wars and battle. Just like we won the southwest US through war. If Mexico wants that land back, it can declare war on us. However, I wouldn't advise it as Mexico would be obliterated in seconds.
On May 12 2010 17:51 Romantic wrote: Bottom line racial profiling is illegal, brah
Its not racial profiling. In the police world, its called matching a profile. If someone called and said she'd been raped by a black guy 7 foot tall, do you think we'd be asking white guys who are 5'5 if they raped that girl? No fucking way. If a black guy 7 foot tall walked by, do you think the police would question him? Yes fucking way! Even if the guy didn't do it, he matches the profile so there's a chance he did the crime.
On May 12 2010 17:51 Romantic wrote: Bottom line racial profiling is illegal, brah
Its not racial profiling. In the police world, its called matching a profile. If someone called and said she'd been raped by a black guy 7 foot tall, do you think we'd be asking white guys who are 5'5 if they raped that girl? No fucking way. If a black guy 7 foot tall walked by, do you think the police would question him? Yes fucking way! Even if the guy didn't do it, he matches the profile so there's a chance he did the crime.
Blacks should support racial profiling by the police since they are the ones who would benefit most from it, being the main victims of black criminals, and considering that profiling has proven effective in reducing crime. Similarly, blacks (and the poor generally) are the biggest beneficiaries of harsh prison sentences for criminals, and oughtn't protest the fact that the demographics of prison inmates reflect those of the criminals. For similar reasons, Mexican citizens of the U.S. should support Arizona's law, as many of them in fact do in spite of the organized ethnic lobbies purporting to speak on their behalf.
On May 12 2010 13:21 statix wrote:That would just result in widespread discrimination. The thought of being forced to provide proof of citizenship or be detained is enraging. I'm a legit American citizen who just so happens to be hispanic; that means I get to be treated differently? Awesome.
They are only asking for things that most people carry on them anyways. All I keep hearing are cries of racism. Let me ask you this...how do you propose they solve the problem?
It's the thought of having to do something that nobody else does just because I look mexican that angers me. It just feels so degrading. I guess you'd have to have something similar done to you to understand how it feels.
It really just makes you feel like lesser citizen. How is it not racism if it discriminates against millions of hispanics just because they look mexican?
On May 12 2010 17:51 Romantic wrote: Bottom line racial profiling is illegal, brah
Its not racial profiling. In the police world, its called matching a profile. If someone called and said she'd been raped by a black guy 7 foot tall, do you think we'd be asking white guys who are 5'5 if they raped that girl? No fucking way. If a black guy 7 foot tall walked by, do you think the police would question him? Yes fucking way! Even if the guy didn't do it, he matches the profile so there's a chance he did the crime.
Blacks should support racial profiling by the police since they are the ones who would benefit most from it, being the main victims of black criminals, and considering that profiling has proven effective in reducing crime. Similarly, blacks (and the poor generally) are the biggest beneficiaries of harsh prison sentences for criminals, and oughtn't protest the fact that the demographics of prison inmates reflect those of the criminals. For similar reasons, Mexican citizens of the U.S. should support Arizona's law, as many of them in fact do in spite of the organized ethnic lobbies purporting to speak on their behalf.
Mexican citizens should go back to where they belong, in mexico.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany's separation and purification techniques, and all together just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
You obviously never lived in Nazi Germany. They aren't being shipped off to concentration camps, they're being kicked out to Mexico. Personally, I feel this law is very needless, however, it would be unwise of your roommate to tell a cop "go f yourself" As he'll only serve to get himself arrested, whether it's the right thing for the cop to do or not. Hopefully they abolish this law, though....But don't compare it to Nazi Germany...Ever.
If I were an illegal immigrant I would probably support this law. From what I hear this law doesn't seem like it will be very effective or even enforced that well. It's just a distraction that makes people believe something is actually being done about illegal immigration. The more outrage that is made over this bill the more people will finally realize that nothing can be done about illegal immigration besides sealing the border and if I'm an illegal I'd take this law over stricter border control.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue of illegal immigration is one the should be solved by increased border control rather than harassing people already in the country... You want to keep people out? Build a fence... that's pretty much what China did with the Great Wall and apart from full scale military invasions, it did a pretty good job. If you're not going to strengthen the borders, stop whining about people crossing them...
On May 13 2010 01:21 JinMaikeul wrote: As far as I'm concerned, the issue of illegal immigration is one the should be solved by increased border control rather than harassing people already in the country... You want to keep people out? Build a fence... that's pretty much what China did with the Great Wall and apart from full scale military invasions, it did a pretty good job. If you're not going to strengthen the borders, stop whining about people crossing them...
China's Great Wall was built on slave labor, who do you think is going to build this wall? The people whining/raging about immigration? Don't be dumb about it.
And the people who say don't compare it to Nazi Germany, ends justifying whatever means is a pretty Fascist concept.
The Arizona law would be unnecessary if the federal government actually enforced its own immigration laws. What are the people of Arizona to do when illegal immigration is so obviously bankrupting the state? California, Texas, and New Mexico are in the same boat. The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
Immigration reform is really simple: close the back door and open the front door. None of this would be an issue if the federal government got on the ball.
What's the legality of a sheriff refusing to uphold a law? He's an elected official, but I'm assuming there's a system in place where the justice department or state senate can fire him?
On May 13 2010 01:33 Judicator wrote: China's Great Wall was built on slave labor, who do you think is going to build this wall? The people whining/raging about immigration? Don't be dumb about it.
Considering the fact that I'm pretty sure we don't use slave labor in this country, I fail to see what your point is. It would be built by the same people that construct our dams and skyscrapers... Namely, paid contracters and laborers. So what's the problem again?
On May 12 2010 23:36 statix wrote: Anything that doesn't treat American citizens differently just because of their race, color, or national origin. Does that sound too demanding?
You do realize the law does that, it Specifically prohibits racial profiling. The cop can only ask for proof of immigration status if they have non-racially based reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.
Note: this is a Federal law from the 1930s, Arizona is just making it also a state misdemeanor, thereby empowering (and mandating) that their police officers enforce it.
As for a fence v. enforcement in the country... enforcement at the border is important, but that doesn't mean that if you past the border that you are beyond law enforcement.
Honestly what they really need to do is significantly strengthen the penalties for hiring illegal immigrants... say $1,000 fine for hiring a day laborer who doesn't have the right to work in the country and $100,000 fine for giving them a full-time job. Then you give illegal immigrants a reward for reporting their illegal employers (10% of the fine and a free one-month work visa) Then you eliminate the reason for them to come.
That way you turn the illegal employees against the illegal employers (since the illegal employment relies on them trusting each other)
I have a strong feeling the first appeal filed on the basis of fifth amendment violations will result in a supreme court ruling that will effectively render practice of this law illegal.
It's racial profiling, no matter how you look at it
Then again, racial profiling occurs on a daily basis in the US, every airport profiles muslim passengers with arabic looks, so i guess it's possible this law lives. There also hasn't really been any true vindication against the internment of US citizens of Japanese decent back in the 40's.
On a final, very honest note - are hispanics discriminated against today? Absolutely and the only remedy to this that i can see is a significant decrease in the number of mexicans currently living illegally in the US. I don't think your average white Joe thinks of any other ethnic minority as "lesser citizens" however hispanics ARE in many cases perceived of as such. This is because this particular minority group houses so many individuals who are in fact not citizens at all.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant population + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
On May 13 2010 01:26 AmstAff wrote: in germany we started the same way and noone said something, maybe other countrys learned from german history.
if they woulds start such a stupid law in germany i would start fighting on the streets and im serious about this.
++
Also, in general I think we'd all be better off with no borders. Any law that strengthens borders or gives cops more power is bad IMO.
Lots of people in arizona hate this law. First and foremost there are shit tons of latinos here legally, human rights groups that sympathize with them, business owners who don't want half of their workforce / patrons to be dragged away in chains, and really anyone who pays attention to politics at all and isn't a biggot.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
Unfilled jobs? People worked at those jobs.Teenagers took those jobs way back. Fact is that the illegals take more from the system than they give in. There would be very little inflation if the federal government abolished minimum wage. That is the reason no one is hiring American Citizens or legal immigrants. The minimum wage prevents regular law abides from competing with the illegals for the work.
On May 13 2010 01:26 AmstAff wrote: in germany we started the same way and noone said something, maybe other countrys learned from german history.
if they woulds start such a stupid law in germany i would start fighting on the streets and im serious about this.
++
Also, in general I think we'd all be better off with no borders. Any law that strengthens borders or gives cops more power is bad IMO.
Lots of people in arizona hate this law. First and foremost there are shit tons of latinos here legally, human rights groups that sympathize with them, business owners who don't want half of their workforce / patrons to be dragged away in chains, and really anyone who pays attention to politics at all and isn't a biggot.
No borders? Are you serious? There are 3 billion people who want to come into the US. Do you want us to support all those 3 billion? Fuck no. Fact is that 60% of Americans either support or think this law is too lenient.
On May 13 2010 01:26 AmstAff wrote: in germany we started the same way and noone said something, maybe other countrys learned from german history.
if they woulds start such a stupid law in germany i would start fighting on the streets and im serious about this.
++
Also, in general I think we'd all be better off with no borders. Any law that strengthens borders or gives cops more power is bad IMO.
Lots of people in arizona hate this law. First and foremost there are shit tons of latinos here legally, human rights groups that sympathize with them, business owners who don't want half of their workforce / patrons to be dragged away in chains, and really anyone who pays attention to politics at all and isn't a biggot.
No borders?
The hell is wrong with you?
That is such an AWFUL idea I don't know where to start.
On May 13 2010 01:26 AmstAff wrote: in germany we started the same way and noone said something, maybe other countrys learned from german history.
if they woulds start such a stupid law in germany i would start fighting on the streets and im serious about this.
++
Also, in general I think we'd all be better off with no borders. Any law that strengthens borders or gives cops more power is bad IMO.
Lots of people in arizona hate this law. First and foremost there are shit tons of latinos here legally, human rights groups that sympathize with them, business owners who don't want half of their workforce / patrons to be dragged away in chains, and really anyone who pays attention to politics at all and isn't a biggot.
No borders? Are you serious? There are 3 billion people who want to come into the US. Do you want us to support all those 3 billion? Fuck no. Fact is that 60% of Americans either support or think this law is too lenient.
Don't get too upset with the kids that haven't yet figured out that money doesn't grow on trees. =p
On May 12 2010 23:36 statix wrote: Anything that doesn't treat American citizens differently just because of their race, color, or national origin. Does that sound too demanding?
You do realize the law does that, it Specifically prohibits racial profiling. The cop can only ask for proof of immigration status if they have non-racially based reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.
So you're saying that racial profiling doesn't exist because the law prohibits it?
What is an example of non-racially based reasonable suspicion? Having an accent?
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
Unfilled jobs? People worked at those jobs.Teenagers took those jobs way back. Fact is that the illegals take more from the system than they give in. There would be very little inflation if the federal government abolished minimum wage. That is the reason no one is hiring American Citizens or legal immigrants. The minimum wage prevents regular law abides from competing with the illegals for the work.
As long as they aren't collecting welfare, I don't really care. They aren't taking any job that a person with a college education would be trying to get.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
Unfilled jobs? People worked at those jobs.Teenagers took those jobs way back. Fact is that the illegals take more from the system than they give in. There would be very little inflation if the federal government abolished minimum wage. That is the reason no one is hiring American Citizens or legal immigrants. The minimum wage prevents regular law abides from competing with the illegals for the work.
As long as they aren't collecting welfare, I don't really care. They aren't taking any job that a person with a college education would be trying to get.
See, they will spawn children. A lot of children. These children will need medical care and schooling and food stamps. That's a nono. And these people taking lower end jobs will directly affect the college educated competition. Because people can't work low end jobs, they will be forced to get a college education to find work. That forces people who had no intention of getting the degree to get the degree. More people with degrees means more competition for jobs. Simple as that.
If you want a supply of cheap labor, guess what? We have a plentiful supply in the US. Get rid of the minimum wage and get rid of food stamps. If people can't get free food from the government, they will be forced to work whatever job they can find to feed themselves. There are plenty of jobs occupied by illegals that can be overtaken by legal immigrants or US citizens.
On May 12 2010 23:36 statix wrote: Anything that doesn't treat American citizens differently just because of their race, color, or national origin. Does that sound too demanding?
You do realize the law does that, it Specifically prohibits racial profiling. The cop can only ask for proof of immigration status if they have non-racially based reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.
So you're saying that racial profiling doesn't exist because the law prohibits it?
What is an example of non-racially based reasonable suspicion? Having an accent?
Err actually you'll be surprised at how many illegal immigrants don't have something like a BASIC identification, much less the papers proving they are legal immigrants.
It is much easier to get non-racial RS than people think.
If I ask for someones identification and they have NOTHING it throws up red flags like you wouldn't believe.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
On May 13 2010 03:23 hacpee wrote: There are 3 billion people who want to come into the US.
Your world view is extremely myopic. Most irregular immigrants in the US seasonal workers, or they would be if the border restrictions hadn't happened, meaning they actually have no intention of living in the United States. Tightening the border has actually turned many of them into permanent migrants because repeat entry is not reliable, and so their families come over to.
I don't know if you've been to the border in Arizona or Texas, but the quality of living is not higher than across the border. Not everyone wants to live in America, they just want jobs.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
So in light of a temporary downturn, you're looking to reverse progress in the American economy. I can see why you're not an economist or a social scientists.
The practical matter is that it just won't happen, and immigration levels have a strong link to the state of the economy. It's not as if they've remained static this entire time.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
So in light of a temporary downturn, you're looking to reverse progress in the American economy. I can see why you're not an economist or a social scientists.
Most economists support getting rid of the minimum wage.
On May 13 2010 03:23 hacpee wrote: There are 3 billion people who want to come into the US.
Your world view is extremely myopic. Most irregular immigrants in the US seasonal workers, or they would be if the border restrictions hadn't happened, meaning they actually have no intention of living in the United States. Tightening the border has actually turned many of them into permanent migrants because repeat entry is not reliable, and so their families come over to.
I don't know if you've been to the border in Arizona or Texas, but the quality of living is not higher than across the border. Not everyone wants to live in America, they just want jobs.
Irregular immigrants? What are irregular immigrants? Do you mean illegal immigrants? They want jobs, good for them. Too bad but these jobs are American jobs. For American people. The mexicans can ask their own government for jobs.
On May 13 2010 01:26 AmstAff wrote: in germany we started the same way and noone said something, maybe other countrys learned from german history.
if they woulds start such a stupid law in germany i would start fighting on the streets and im serious about this.
++
Also, in general I think we'd all be better off with no borders. Any law that strengthens borders or gives cops more power is bad IMO.
Lots of people in arizona hate this law. First and foremost there are shit tons of latinos here legally, human rights groups that sympathize with them, business owners who don't want half of their workforce / patrons to be dragged away in chains, and really anyone who pays attention to politics at all and isn't a biggot.
No borders? Are you serious? There are 3 billion people who want to come into the US. Do you want us to support all those 3 billion? Fuck no. Fact is that 60% of Americans either support or think this law is too lenient.
"3 billion"? You're saying almost half the world wants to get into the US? You know Glenn Beck isn't a journalist, right? He's a "commentator" and therefore isn't bound by any legal obligation to report the truth
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
So, where exactly does this article disagree with anything that I said? On a side note, CFR apparently thinks fairly well of CIS and even cites to them and their study (look at p. 23 and 24). You can say CIS is not credible if you want, but I think you'll look pretty silly.
More importantly, the conclusion from CFR is that illegal immigration only has a minor negative effect upon the greater US economy, which I agree with. What CFR does not mention, but what is patently obvious, is that most of the economic burdens of illegal immigration fall upon the states with the largest populations of illegal immigrants. These, uncoincidentally, are the border states, such as Texas, California, and Arizona. In other words, the people of those states are bearing the brunt of the fiscal burden, which is was the whole point that I was making.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
So in light of a temporary downturn, you're looking to reverse progress in the American economy. I can see why you're not an economist or a social scientists.
Most economists support getting rid of the minimum wage.
You're good at blanket, uneducated statements.
The 2005 report of AEA members (American Economic Association) had something like 45% who thought it should be eliminated. That option had the most supporters of any, but it's clearly not "most" and that encompasses all economists. Labor economists tend to side in favor of a minimum wage.
What I don't understand is the boycott of Arizona companies. If anything, those companies want to be able to hire more illegal immigrants because they can pay them less than minimum wage under the table for menial labor. That would mean that most companies would not be in favor of the law. Whether you're for or against the law, that part just makes no sense to me.
More importantly, the conclusion from CFR is that illegal immigration only has a minor negative effect upon the greater US economy, which I agree with. What CFR does not mention, but what is patently obvious, is that most of the economic burdens of illegal immigration fall upon the states with the largest populations of illegal immigrants. These, uncoincidentally, are the border states, such as Texas, California, and Arizona. In other words, the people of those states are bearing the brunt of the fiscal burden, which is was the whole point that I was making.
Wait, so if someone is working at a farm in California, how is their work going to benefit the economies of other states and not California?
Jesus christ, I can see why social science is such a failure at TL.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
Immigrant status is irrelevant, most poor people who make any use of government funded services are not net taxpayers and do take more out of the system than they contribute. Illegal Hispanic immigrants are most often poor, so their presence and use of the government services extended to them does create some burden on taxpayers(see:http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)
. I think it's still up to debate whether or not Hispanic immigrants exacerbate societal ills. Nobody is going to do legitimate research on this because they'll be metaphorically crucified if they find the "wrong" conclusion. I gave my theory on this a few pages back, I don't think first generations immigrants are the ones causing the crime that frequently gets attributed to illegal immigrants, but rather their many many unsupported offspring.
More importantly, the conclusion from CFR is that illegal immigration only has a minor negative effect upon the greater US economy, which I agree with. What CFR does not mention, but what is patently obvious, is that most of the economic burdens of illegal immigration fall upon the states with the largest populations of illegal immigrants. These, uncoincidentally, are the border states, such as Texas, California, and Arizona. In other words, the people of those states are bearing the brunt of the fiscal burden, which is was the whole point that I was making.
Wait, so if someone is working at a farm in California, how is their work going to benefit the economies of other states and not California?
Jesus christ, I can see why social science is such a failure at TL.
Because people disagree with you? Yeah total failure.
The produce raised on Californian farms doesn't have to stay in California.
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
On May 13 2010 03:37 Jibba wrote: Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
If Americans aren't willing to pick strawberries and lettuce, then we shouldn't be producing strawberries and lettuce in America.
Or rather, if it is not possible to make a profit off of strawberries and lettuce with the high wages that would be needed to get Americans to pick them, then you shouldn't grow strawberries+lettuce in America.
Now if you think we should bring more people into America who are willing to pick that Strawberries+lettuce, then you should increase the number of legal immigrants (make the process easier and increase the numbers allowed) OR make it easier for legal immigrants and legal residents of orther countries to get American citizenship to become Americans. (assuming that minimum wage/workplace conditions rules are not the problem)
However, illegal immigrants only economically survive by fraud (false papers for their employer) and/or black market economy (under the table payment)
And here I was sitting thinking that border security and protecting the interests of our citizens over foreigners was just common sense. Why don't we just get rid of passports, visas, customs, the entire legal process involved to travel between countries and just let people roam around wherever they want and whenever they want? Be it by land, sea, or air, why have borders at all? Every country in the world should go ahead and do this. It's not like we're all separate nations or anything or that there are any security implications, right? Silly me... oh, wait...
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
making it illegal to be an illegal immigrant how crazy.
the law says when a cop stops you in a traffic stop or some other lawlful contact, ie you just killed someone. They can ask you for your drivers license.. which is something they cant do now.
What a crazy concept, asking someone for their drivers license? when you get a speeding ticket do you feel outraged when the cop asks you? Do you feel as if he's profiling you? How do you think americans feel when we get pulled over and a ticket when mexicans who arent even citizens get pulled over and just WAVED ON. Cops who pull over speeding mexicans without a drivers license, w/o proof of insurance, w/o a title in a stolen vehicle, they cant do anything to them.
WHY? you ask? B/c they arent citizens are not subject to those laws. All they can do is detain them for up to 48hrs and call ICE. If they arent huge felons with rap sheets the size of montana ICE tells them they are too busy and they are released. They have done this thousands of times so that they dont even bother calling ICE anymore, whats the point? ICE doesnt do their job...
Its fairly upsetting when people who dont really understand the law make comments and huge accusations. IE the president with his ridculous comment about a 5th generation hispanic and his family going into an icecream shop and being jacked up by police asking for papers. There's also that idiot lawyer who said on a news interview that : "I went to mexico once, on a beach, but i didnt bring my passport with me to the beach or the ocean, what if they go into the ocean where i am and ask mefor my papers? This is just outragous"
Its completely insane! Your DRIVERS LISENSCE is proof of citizenship, all their doing is asking for your DL when you're caught breaking the law.
Why is that such a crazy concept? Someone please explain to me the outrageousness of this?
ILLEGAL IMMAGRANTS BEING ILLEGAL?? HOLY FREAKIN SHIT!!?!?!!
On May 13 2010 04:07 LumberJack wrote: making it illegal to be an illegal immigrant how crazy.
the law says when a cop stops you in a traffic stop or some other lawlful contact, ie you just killed someone. They can ask you for your drivers license.. which is something they cant do now.
What a crazy concept, asking someone for their drivers license? when you get a speeding ticket do you feel outraged when the cop asks you? Do you feel as if he's profiling you? How do you think americans feel when we get pulled over and a ticket when mexicans who arent even citizens get pulled over and just WAVED ON. Cops who pull over speeding mexicans without a drivers license, w/o proof of insurance, w/o a title in a stolen vehicle, they cant do anything to them.
WHY? you ask? B/c they arent citizens are not subject to those laws. All they can do is detain them for up to 48hrs and call ICE. If they arent huge felons with rap sheets the size of montana ICE tells them they are too busy and they are released. They have done this thousands of times so that they dont even bother calling ICE anymore, whats the point? ICE doesnt do their job...
Its fairly upsetting when people who dont really understand the law make comments and huge accusations. IE the president with his ridculous comment about a 5th generation hispanic and his family going into an icecream shop and being jacked up by police asking for papers. There's also that idiot lawyer who said on a news interview that : "I went to mexico once, on a beach, but i didnt bring my passport with me to the beach or the ocean, what if they go into the ocean where i am and ask mefor my papers? This is just outragous"
Its completely insane! Your DRIVERS LISENSCE is proof of citizenship, all their doing is asking for your DL when you're caught breaking the law.
Why is that such a crazy concept? Someone please explain to me the outrageousness of this?
ILLEGAL IMMAGRANTS BEING ILLEGAL?? HOLY FREAKIN SHIT!!?!?!!
To make it clear, you can show any federal or state issued identification with and it will pass muster. So if you don't have the license but you do have your passport, guess what? You're home free!
On May 13 2010 04:01 Drowsy wrote: Nobody is going to do legitimate research on this because they'll be metaphorically crucified if they find the "wrong" conclusion.
It has been done...
The produce raised on Californian farms doesn't have to stay in California.
And where is the company located that produces and sells the produce? Hint: It's mentioned twice in your post!
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
So in light of a temporary downturn, you're looking to reverse progress in the American economy. I can see why you're not an economist or a social scientists.
Most economists support getting rid of the minimum wage.
You're good at blanket, uneducated statements.
The 2005 report of AEA members (American Economic Association) had something like 45% who thought it should be eliminated. That option had the most supporters of any, but it's clearly not "most" and that encompasses all economists. Labor economists tend to side in favor of a minimum wage.
Yes if the minimum wage was so good, why don't we raise it so everyone can be rich? Make the minimum wage 30 dollars then everyone will be happy! Fact is an arbitrary minimum wage will prevent employers from hiring more workers for cheaper. More expensive workers means less productivity per dollar which means higher prices.
On May 13 2010 03:37 Jibba wrote: Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
If Americans aren't willing to pick strawberries and lettuce, then we shouldn't be producing strawberries and lettuce in America.
Or rather, if it is not possible to make a profit off of strawberries and lettuce with the high wages that would be needed to get Americans to pick them, then you shouldn't grow strawberries+lettuce in America.
Now if you think we should bring more people into America who are willing to pick that Strawberries+lettuce, then you should increase the number of legal immigrants (make the process easier and increase the numbers allowed) OR make it easier for legal immigrants and legal residents of orther countries to get American citizenship to become Americans. (assuming that minimum wage/workplace conditions rules are not the problem)
However, illegal immigrants only economically survive by fraud (false papers for their employer) and/or black market economy (under the table payment)
The misled economic idealism of Ron Paul does not mean anything in the real world. Lettuce will still be produced, and they're not going to be selling it for $10/head. California and Texas aren't going to do anything similar, so the businesses and immigrants are just going to leave. Arizona's economy will get fucked by this.
Enough with the Nazi Germany comparisons. It's not enough to just say that since one asked for papers it is comprable to the other since there are more differences than there are similarities. This standard simply isn't sufficient.
For starters there exist clear restirctions on the Arizona law. There won't be any SS stopping by your house in the middle of the night warrantlessly taking you away. The intent behind the law is also clearly different. Even Republicans would acknowledge that immigration in general is good that and illegal immigrants do some good for the country. It is absurd to insinuate that this law seeks to harm these people. Also there is much more transparency. People have the right to question the officer in court on the basis for their decisions. On top of that this law isn't even backed by the government.
Ofc the most obvious clear distinction is reliant upon our 20/20 hindsight of what happened in Nazi Germany. We know where that went. It is offensive to basic human senses to compare one of the largest tragedies in human history to this law when none of the same imputs exist other than a federal law that requires having papers that has been around for generations. Before anyone compares this to Nazi germany and says it will create a slipperly slope YOU hold the burden of showing what imputs in any way would get close to creating any situation like that.
@ Lumberjack Because people seem to be under the misguided notion that people from Mexico should be allowed to come in and out of this country whenever they want without any accountability whatsoever just because we happen to share a border. That and the ridiculous idea that this nation would somehow crumble or implode without them... -_-
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
So in light of a temporary downturn, you're looking to reverse progress in the American economy. I can see why you're not an economist or a social scientists.
Most economists support getting rid of the minimum wage.
You're good at blanket, uneducated statements.
The 2005 report of AEA members (American Economic Association) had something like 45% who thought it should be eliminated. That option had the most supporters of any, but it's clearly not "most" and that encompasses all economists. Labor economists tend to side in favor of a minimum wage.
Yes if the minimum wage was so good, why don't we raise it so everyone can be rich? Make the minimum wage 30 dollars then everyone will be happy! Fact is an arbitrary minimum wage will prevent employers from hiring more workers for cheaper. More expensive workers means less productivity per dollar which means higher prices.
You've just deflected your completely wrong post, and I don't think you understand the mechanics behind minimum wage. I don't, entirely, but I don't pretend to know shit I'm unfamiliar with.
On May 13 2010 01:37 xDaunt wrote: The unfortunate reality is that illegal immigrants take far more out of the system than they contribute to it. Period. This isn't about racism. It's about fiscal reality.
The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
So in light of a temporary downturn, you're looking to reverse progress in the American economy. I can see why you're not an economist or a social scientists.
Most economists support getting rid of the minimum wage.
You're good at blanket, uneducated statements.
The 2005 report of AEA members (American Economic Association) had something like 45% who thought it should be eliminated. That option had the most supporters of any, but it's clearly not "most" and that encompasses all economists. Labor economists tend to side in favor of a minimum wage.
Yes if the minimum wage was so good, why don't we raise it so everyone can be rich? Make the minimum wage 30 dollars then everyone will be happy! Fact is an arbitrary minimum wage will prevent employers from hiring more workers for cheaper. More expensive workers means less productivity per dollar which means higher prices.
You've just deflected your completely wrong post, and I don't think you understand the mechanics behind minimum wage. I don't, entirely, but I don't pretend to know shit I'm unfamiliar with.
That makes one of us in this conversation.
Minimum wage is simple. Any intro to economics class covers it. If you're unfamiliar with it you should probably read up on it before discussing it.
On May 13 2010 03:37 Jibba wrote: Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
If Americans aren't willing to pick strawberries and lettuce, then we shouldn't be producing strawberries and lettuce in America.
Or rather, if it is not possible to make a profit off of strawberries and lettuce with the high wages that would be needed to get Americans to pick them, then you shouldn't grow strawberries+lettuce in America.
Now if you think we should bring more people into America who are willing to pick that Strawberries+lettuce, then you should increase the number of legal immigrants (make the process easier and increase the numbers allowed) OR make it easier for legal immigrants and legal residents of orther countries to get American citizenship to become Americans. (assuming that minimum wage/workplace conditions rules are not the problem)
However, illegal immigrants only economically survive by fraud (false papers for their employer) and/or black market economy (under the table payment)
The misled economic idealism of Ron Paul does not mean anything in the real world. Lettuce will still be produced, and they're not going to be selling it for $10/head. California and Texas aren't going to do anything similar, so the businesses and immigrants are just going to leave. Arizona's economy will get fucked by this.
As I said, if people are hungry they will work for any wage. We have 1/8th of our population on food stamps. Take away their food stamps and guess what? They will work for low wages to be able to buy food! Thus, we took a group of unproductive people living on food stamps and welfare and they have suddenly become productive people doing things! Amazing. All without illegals in the mix.
On May 13 2010 04:13 Jibba wrote: Lettuce will still be produced, and they're not going to be selling it for $10/head.
Well I was assuming that worst case scenario for the business(ie no longer profitable because people won't buy lettuce at that price)
The fact is if Americans won't buy it for the cost it would take to get Americans to pick it, then the lettuce shouldn't be made in America.
Now if we want cheap lettuce, then revise the immigration laws to allow 20 million immigrants per year, with a quick 2 hour check. Instead of the few that we allow now. (or annex Mexico, make them all American citizens)
More importantly, the conclusion from CFR is that illegal immigration only has a minor negative effect upon the greater US economy, which I agree with. What CFR does not mention, but what is patently obvious, is that most of the economic burdens of illegal immigration fall upon the states with the largest populations of illegal immigrants. These, uncoincidentally, are the border states, such as Texas, California, and Arizona. In other words, the people of those states are bearing the brunt of the fiscal burden, which is was the whole point that I was making.
Wait, so if someone is working at a farm in California, how is their work going to benefit the economies of other states and not California?
Jesus christ, I can see why social science is such a failure at TL.
The very obvious point that you are missing (or more likely ignoring) is that the host states bear huge fiscal burdens from illegal immigrant population because of the fact that illegal immigrants utilize far more public services (education, medical, and incarceration [yes, states actually pay money to house illegal immigrants in jails] services) than what they pay back to the states in tax revenues. This creates budget shortfalls, to which states either respond by raising taxes on productive citizens or cutting benefits to productive citizens.
As I said, no amount of contribution to the private economy by illegal immigrants through their labor offsets these fiscal burdens that the states face. The mere fact that illegal immigration is a net drain on the entire US economy is unequivocal proof of that. A little bit of intellectual honesty in admitting that fact would be greatly appreciated.
I want illegal immigrants to come here anytime they want to work all the jobs that Americans won't do. Thats right I said it. I love em, I love em all.
On May 13 2010 04:33 ktp wrote: I want illegal immigrants to come here anytime they want to work all the jobs that Americans won't do. Thats right I said it. I love em, I love em all.
What are all these supposed jobs that Americans and legal immigrants won't do?
natives inhabit new land from bearing straight life is good english show up hey guys gtfo colonies tell english to gtfo become americans mexicans tell americans to gtfo americans tell mexicans to gtfo of mexico(wat?) the south (dudes who own most of the land taken from mexico) tells north to gtfo of their shit irish show up, get called a bunch of freeloading immigrants italians show up, get called a bunch of freeloading immigrants eastern europeans show up, get called a bunch of freeloading immigrants
now the irish, italian, euros, english, ex-slaves stolen from elsewhere make up most of the country... call the mexicans in the land inhabited by mexicans for a couple thousand years a bunch of freeloading immigrants.
the natives just roll their eyes.
canada lols at situation and turns the NHL playoffs back on.
On May 12 2010 23:36 statix wrote:It's the thought of having to do something that nobody else does just because I look mexican that angers me. It just feels so degrading. I guess you'd have to have something similar done to you to understand how it feels.
It really just makes you feel like lesser citizen. How is it not racism if it discriminates against millions of hispanics just because they look mexican?
To me it is just profiling though...something that law enforcers regularly do. But your concern is understandable...I don't want racism in the US either. But how else to solve the problem? If there is a better solution I would honestly like to know it.
Anything that doesn't treat American citizens differently just because of their race, color, or national origin. Does that sound too demanding?
Heres the thing though...by the law there is nobody being treated differently. They are asking for your ID/papers. They do that to everybody.
I can't think of any other logical way to do it. In reality they should be raiding places that house and hire illegals and deporting on the spot...asking for your ID on a traffic stop is the least intrusive thing they can possibly do.
This is my problem with the people protesting the law. They protest the law on these grounds, but they don't explain a better way to solve the problem because there isn't one. All they are doing essentially is protesting the enforcement of already in place laws and protesting any solution that comes about rather than proposing their own solutions.
On May 13 2010 02:50 Jibba wrote: [quote] The unfortunately reality is that you can't back up this statement because it's simply not true. There's a short term loss in things like education, but there's no indication that Hispanic immigrants worsen societal ills (the opposite has largely found, actually) and they've become a necessary part of the economy. The notion that jobs are being taken away is flatly untrue because the work being done is otherwise unfilled 3D jobs, and the economies of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are all better off for having large immigrant populations, and for having irregular immigrants.
Do you guys go grocery shopping at all? Do you know how much inflation would be caused if all illegal immigrants were found and deported?
I'm not sure if you're serious. Think for one moment: Large illegal immigrant + very few illegal immigrants pay taxes (for obvious reasons) + illegal immigrants use social services = FISCAL PROBLEM.
Fortunately, you don't need to rely upon your logic to figure that one out. It has been well documented and studied.
If you had any familiarity with the business side of medicine and hospitals, you'd know that their number 1 concern, particularly in areas with large populations of illegal immigrants, is getting compensated for treating illegal immigrants!
Lol@Heritage as a source. We already know Reagan would send all immigrants to the moon.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
...
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.
The bottom line is that illegal immigrant labor does not lower prices enough to warrant their net drain upon the economy. Besides, Americans can go do those jobs that illegals do, especially those that are desperate for work right now.
Both of these sentences are untrue. America has transitioned to a service economy, even a short downturn isn't going to cause people to go back to picking lettuce and strawberries. The pool of legal low-skilled workers is tiny at this point.
And how about the food stamps and others social services that their children use? All provided free by the state.Again, we have 10% unemployment. One in eight Americans are on food stamps. Take the food stamps away and they will in fact work the jobs the illegals worked before. Then we can kick out the illegals and have a lower unemployment rate.
So in light of a temporary downturn, you're looking to reverse progress in the American economy. I can see why you're not an economist or a social scientists.
Most economists support getting rid of the minimum wage.
You're good at blanket, uneducated statements.
The 2005 report of AEA members (American Economic Association) had something like 45% who thought it should be eliminated. That option had the most supporters of any, but it's clearly not "most" and that encompasses all economists. Labor economists tend to side in favor of a minimum wage.
Yes if the minimum wage was so good, why don't we raise it so everyone can be rich? Make the minimum wage 30 dollars then everyone will be happy! Fact is an arbitrary minimum wage will prevent employers from hiring more workers for cheaper. More expensive workers means less productivity per dollar which means higher prices.
You've just deflected your completely wrong post, and I don't think you understand the mechanics behind minimum wage. I don't, entirely, but I don't pretend to know shit I'm unfamiliar with.
That makes one of us in this conversation.
Minimum wage is simple. Any intro to economics class covers it. If you're unfamiliar with it you should probably read up on it before discussing it.
I'm sure your intro to economics class covered all the intricacies and various economic theories currently being debated among economists regarding minimum wage. The fact that 45% of economics support abolishing it and the other 55 are divided into other schools of thought should indicate that maybe the issue isn't as cut-and-dry as your intro class might have lead you to believe.
The new law, which says that students "should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people," bans classes that might promote an overthrow of the U.S. government; that promote resentment toward a particular race or class; are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, or which advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.
According to the AP, state schools chief Tom Horne (who is also, incidentally, running for state attorney general) has long advocated the bill, claiming that the district's Mexican-American studies program encourages the belief among Latino pupils that they are oppressed by whites. Horne has also said that the program promotes "ethnic chauvinism."
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.
This is my problem with the people protesting the law. They protest the law on these grounds, but they don't explain a better way to solve the problem because there isn't one. All they are doing essentially is protesting the enforcement of already in place laws and protesting any solution that comes about rather than proposing their own solutions.
This logic people have astounds me. you are essentially saying: "HEY YOU DONT HAVE AN ANSWER SO SHUT UP. "
You do not need the right solution to know what the wrong solution is.
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.
Profiling works. When someone comes up with a more socially palatable alternative that also works, I'll be the first to advocate implementing it.
Profiling will inevitably occur in some form or another. You could argue that the laws surrounding airport security will lead to personnel unfairly singling out people of Arab descent, but does that mean we shouldn't have these laws? Profiling aside, this law simply requires people to carry identification. For legal residents, it's really a minor inconvenience at most...
I do agree it's a stupid law in that I highly doubt anyone (law enforcement included) is going to take it seriously, but it's nothing close to the Gestapo poicies people are making it out to be...
I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
To the morons crying about this law and QQing about nazi germany maybe you ought to read the federal law, it is harsher. They passed this to hopefully better enforce it.
Then again most liberals are to busy listening to buttrock or smooth jazz to read or watch the news.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Discrimination is not discrimination if it's universal... Also, there's nothing in the language of the bill about race, skin color, or other visible characteristics. The concern most people have is that racist cops are going to start profiling people, but the fact is that these cops are probably already doing so anyway if that's their inclination. Rejecting this bill won't stop them if that's their nature.
On May 13 2010 05:51 Weedman wrote: Then again most liberals are to busy listening to buttrock or smooth jazz to read [Palin's book] or watch the [fox]news.
On May 13 2010 05:51 Weedman wrote: Then again most liberals are to busy listening to buttrock or smooth jazz to read [Palin's book] or watch the [fox]news.
fixed for ya.
To bad I hate Palin and despise Fox news. :D
Federal Law:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IX > § 1357
§ 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant— (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;
Arizona Law
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
It doesn't.
It's pure coincidence that illegal immigrants are generally mexican. The fact of the matter is that people profile. That's just the way it is. I don't immediately see a hispanic person and think "He's an illegal immigrant" but you're an absolute fool to think the chances aren't higher in general. Especially if they happen to be low-income families.
You can be ethnic blind and color blind and that's well in good but in the end it still means YOU'RE BLIND.
I am not xenophobic in the least. However, an illegal immigrant is illegal. If this country didn't have a type of welfare that basically encourages someone not to work it would be unlikely that the whole immigration thing would be an issue.
What we need to do is pull our troops stationed in useless places like germany or better yet just pull out of the middle east and put them on the mexican border. Deport any illegals that break the law and get the ones already living here and working to apply for citizenship. I like the Arizona law but ultimately I don't think it will do much until the border is secured.
On May 13 2010 06:10 Undisputed- wrote: What we need to do is pull our troops stationed in useless places like germany or better yet just pull out of the middle east and put them on the mexican border. Deport any illegals that break the law and get the ones already living here and working to apply for citizenship. I like the Arizona law but ultimately I don't think it will do much until the border is secured.
I think mostly it will just push more illegal immigrants to California and Texas. As a Californian this is the main reason I dislike the bill, however the bill itself is fine. If anything its just the fact the BILL is in the news and media etc that will cause this. It may make some sort of impact in AZ but I think the Impact will be much bigger on surrounding states in a negative way.
Oh wow that is so racist right?
I live in Norcal and the Home Depot next door to me is a day labor site. I worked in construction and watched every day as contractors trucked in these guys to help with track housing, and watched the wages fall. With the housing bubble burst we now have thousands of homeless illegal aliens chillin at these sites daily hoping to take jobs from real qualified people. So fuckem, round them up and ship them back. Our streets aren't paved with gold, and our citizens deserve these jobs first and foremost. It's a huge lie to say Americans won't do these jobs, the majority of the aliens are not picking crops, they are taking construction jobs.
On May 13 2010 06:10 Undisputed- wrote: What we need to do is pull our troops stationed in useless places like germany or better yet just pull out of the middle east and put them on the mexican border. Deport any illegals that break the law and get the ones already living here and working to apply for citizenship. I like the Arizona law but ultimately I don't think it will do much until the border is secured.
I think mostly it will just push more immigrants to California and Texas. As a Californian this is the main reason I dislike the bill, however the bill itself is fine. If anything its just the fact the BILL is in the news and media etc that will cause this. It may make some sort of impact in AZ but I think the Impact will be much bigger on surrounding states in a negative way.
The law should be passes nationally. But first like I said we need to secure the border. We should also make it easier for productive people to immigrate here legally.
On May 13 2010 06:10 Undisputed- wrote: What we need to do is pull our troops stationed in useless places like germany or better yet just pull out of the middle east and put them on the mexican border. Deport any illegals that break the law and get the ones already living here and working to apply for citizenship. I like the Arizona law but ultimately I don't think it will do much until the border is secured.
I think mostly it will just push more immigrants to California and Texas. As a Californian this is the main reason I dislike the bill, however the bill itself is fine. If anything its just the fact the BILL is in the news and media etc that will cause this. It may make some sort of impact in AZ but I think the Impact will be much bigger on surrounding states in a negative way.
The law should be passes nationally. But first like I said we need to secure the border. We should also make it easier for productive people to immigrate here legally.
My wife is currently going through the immigration process to become a permanent resident. Both the amount of paper work that has to be completed and the amount of fees that need to be paid are ridiculous and insulting. She has a Ph.D. in applied math and pays more taxes than most U.S. citizens. Why in the world would this country make it so difficult for people like her to enter through the front door and stay here permanently while simultaneously allowing millions of people to come here illegally and siphon off money from public services? Our immigration policy is totally screwed up and ass-backwards. As I said before, close the back door and open the front door.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
My wife is currently going through the immigration process to become a permanent resident. Both the amount of paper work that has to be completed and the amount of fees that need to be paid are ridiculous and insulting. She has a Ph.D. in applied math and pays more taxes than most U.S. citizens. Why in the world would this country make it so difficult for people like her to enter through the front door and stay here permanently while simultaneously allowing millions of people to come here illegally and siphon off money from public services? Our immigration policy is totally screwed up and ass-backwards. As I said before, close the back door and open the front door.
I agree with you, it is a huge mess. The lack of enforcement for those who illegally cross and the soft willed politicians who gain from it are what have made it hard for those who want to come here the right way. So now we have millions of people here that some feel they need to cater too because we are all human! WTF!
If you want to come to the US, just hop the border! Its cheaper, easier, and if you get sent back on a bus just try again!
The worst thing is that most of the crossing by the coyotes and immigrants are just a false flag op to distract the BP and bring in the drugs while all the BP are chasing people around in circles. I've lived on the border and seen it with my own eyes.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
I'm not sure I understand. So it's okay for agriculture to be cheap because illegal laborers are paid illegal below-minimum wages and they can't complain about it because of the risk of deportation? That sounds much more like modern slavery to me...
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
Wow, no good deed goes unpunished. I went out of my way to be friendly and explicitly give you the benefit of the doubt, and you respond with this outright incivility? Anyway, as you will....
Go educate yourself and read up on the earlier parts of the thread. The undeniable truth is that illegal immigrants do not contribute more to the system than they take out of it. There are multiple articles cited above demonstrating that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country. More importantly, they are a very severe net drain upon states and communities where there are large communities of illegal immigrants. Yes, some illegal immigrants pay taxes. However, they do not even come close to, as a group, paying enough taxes to cover all of the social benefits that they use. THAT is why the Arizona bill was passed and THAT is why most Americans support it and would like to see similar measures enacted in their states or at a national level.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
You do realize that our tax system is generally a progressive system and that people who generally don't make much (illegal immigrants...) don't pay much if anything into the system as a whole right?
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
Wow, no good deed goes unpunished. I went out of my way to be friendly and explicitly give you the benefit of the doubt, and you respond with this outright incivility? Anyway, as you will....
Go educate yourself and read up on the earlier parts of the thread. The undeniable truth is that illegal immigrants do not contribute more to the system than they take out of it. There are multiple articles cited above demonstrating that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country. More importantly, they are a very severe net drain upon states and communities where there are large communities of illegal immigrants. Yes, some illegal immigrants pay taxes. However, they do not even come close to, as a group, paying enough taxes to cover all of the social benefits that they use. THAT is why the Arizona bill was passed and THAT is why most Americans support it and would like to see similar measures enacted in their states or at a national level.
Yes, I am deliberately discourteous cause you failed to confirm that share the same country bumpkin viewspoints. Also I must go educate myself simply because I have opposing view points! Also don't vaguely elude to some statements like I need to go search myself in order to respond. How about you post them yourself which exact ideas you are for because I can do the same. " "Yes, immigrants pay for their keep, just go look on the internet!"
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
Wow, no good deed goes unpunished. I went out of my way to be friendly and explicitly give you the benefit of the doubt, and you respond with this outright incivility? Anyway, as you will....
Go educate yourself and read up on the earlier parts of the thread. The undeniable truth is that illegal immigrants do not contribute more to the system than they take out of it. There are multiple articles cited above demonstrating that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country. More importantly, they are a very severe net drain upon states and communities where there are large communities of illegal immigrants. Yes, some illegal immigrants pay taxes. However, they do not even come close to, as a group, paying enough taxes to cover all of the social benefits that they use. THAT is why the Arizona bill was passed and THAT is why most Americans support it and would like to see similar measures enacted in their states or at a national level.
Yes, I am deliberately discourteous cause you failed to confirm that share the same country bumpkin viewspoints. Also I must go educate myself simply because I have opposing view points! Also don't vaguely elude to some statements like I need to go search myself in order to respond. How about you post them yourself which exact ideas you are for.
I don't care if people espouse a point of view that disagrees with my own as long as that point of view is informed and grounded in fact. Arguing that illegal immigrants do not constitute a fiscal burden upon the country at both national and state levels (especially at the state level) is proof that your opinion is uneducated on this matter and that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to argue to that illegal immigrants, despite the fiscal burdens, are good for the country, fine. However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all. Sorry, but that is as stupid as it is uninformed.
Anyway, since you're apparently too lazy to go read earlier parts of the thread, here are the main things that you should read:
The desire to protect the sovereignty of one's national boundaries does not, by definition, make one xenophobic. I am a supporter of tighter border security, but I'm all for reworking the legal process to make it easier for these workers to come legally and documented. My problem with illegal immigration is not that I believe these people are bad (Most of them are fine, hard-working people.). My problem is that there's no accountability when it comes to illegal immigration.
We simply do not know who's coming in, how many people are coming in, and more often than not, there's no documentation whatsoever which is not good for them because they're liable to be exploited because of their status and it's not good for the nation because we need information about who is in the country not only for security concerns, but also to collect taxes and allocate resources appropriately. In the cases of communities with dense illegal immigrant populations, this means that these communities are often receiving funding not representative of their actual population. On top of that, they are collecting less taxes while supporting more people with their social services. To say that illegal immigration doesn't cause issues or create a burden is just plain short-sighted.
This is my problem with the people protesting the law. They protest the law on these grounds, but they don't explain a better way to solve the problem because there isn't one. All they are doing essentially is protesting the enforcement of already in place laws and protesting any solution that comes about rather than proposing their own solutions.
This logic people have astounds me. you are essentially saying: "HEY YOU DONT HAVE AN ANSWER SO SHUT UP. "
You do not need the right solution to know what the wrong solution is.
In this case I could easily say that and have a legit point, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying if you are protesting the enforcement of already in place laws and protesting any solution that comes you should shut up. You can't sit and protest ANY deterrent to illegal immigration and expect people who want to solve the problem to stop trying to solve it.
Also I don't understand why people are arguing the cost/benefits of illegals being in the US. It doesn't even matter. What matters is its ILLEGAL and shouldn't be happening.
I have a few questions to explore the statist mindset in this thread. Don't bother if you don't wanna. Ignore my post.
To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you? What is the difference between an illegal immigrant to a legal one? Why do you feel entitled in forcing one to leave and the other one not?
To all the people whining about a loss of jobs or income: do you feel entitled to have a job? What is it that an illegal immigrant is being so unfair in doing that a legal immigrant cannot do? Why do you feel entitled in forcing them to do anything?
To all the people whining about a loss of GDP: what's bad about a lower GDP? What can an illegal immigrant do to lower the GDP that a legal immigrant cannot? Why do you feel entitled in doing whatever it takes to keep GDP up?
To all the people whining about misused public funds: if the public funds are there to "help the public", why is it a misuse? What taxes can an illegal immigrant forfeit that a legal immigrant cannot? Why do you feel entitled to manage the public funds? (tricky question, maybe)
To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you? Nothing.
What is the difference between an illegal immigrant to a legal one? The legal immigrant has state approval. Thats all. One could be lucky to earn a lottery green card, the other one not, for example.
Why do you feel entitled in forcing one to leave and the other one not? I do not, since I do not own the entire geographic region of America, I do not feel entitled to having a say on how it should be managed. Each person is to manage their own property. If they find certain immigrants unproductive and criminally pursuant, they can seize to do business with them, don't rent to them, don't sell houses or anything, and physically impede them only if they do something funny. The whole innocent before guilty thing, you know?
To all the people whining about a loss of jobs or income: do you feel entitled to have a job? No I do not. The employer can hire whoever he wants. He can hire the one asking for the least, just as I can buy the products selling for less. I respect his choice, he respects mine and that's great.
What is it that an illegal immigrant is being so unfair in doing that a legal immigrant cannot do? There is nothing. State approval or the lack thereof does not increase or lowers one's productivity. The illegal immigrant undercuts the legal immigrant simply because the legal immigrant is restrained by the government on minimal wage laws. Remove the law, and no complaints can be made. If anything, the complaint right now should be against such laws, indeed, since they don't allow the "legals" to compete with the illegals.
Why do you feel entitled in forcing them to do anything? I do not. Those who do, might think that they know what's best for them than themselves...
To all the people whining about a loss of GDP: what's bad about a lower GDP? GDP can be increased or decreased in a number of ways, and the measure is hardly of value to distinguish a raise or decrease in the standards of living. To me, it's a useless statistic. A country at war could have an awesome GDP making tanks and blowing up shit (USA included perhaps). Is that good? See broken window fallacy.
What can an illegal immigrant do to lower the GDP that a legal immigrant cannot? They can work for less income, consequently lowering the cost of products and services that are available. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so, I like Walmart and cheap stuff.
Why do you feel entitled in doing whatever it takes to keep GDP up? I do not, since I do not own the GDP (lol). The state claims to own it though, obviously since they are so interested in managing "the economy" (aka you and me)
To all the people whining about misused public funds: if the public funds are there to "help the public", why is it a misuse? Not a misuse. Though I can see why one would think so.
What taxes can an illegal immigrant forfeit that a legal immigrant cannot? Federal taxes mostly. State taxes are almost unavoidable AFAIK. So those schools and hospitals? they're paid for the illegals too. But I could be wrong, whatever.
Why do you feel entitled to manage the public funds? (tricky question, maybe) Yeah, those two questions above are pointless to me because the "public funds" are not really public in my eyes. They're state owned. The state decides what to do with it. You have a recourse in the manner of elections every now and then, mailing your representatives or whatever BS, but really, it's state owned. The state decides and controls the funds. And it becomes theirs right when you forfeit it as taxes. You have no claim to it any longer. State gets your money, state spends your money. Thats how it goes. Now, if the relation between state and citizen could be changed so the state first offers a service and then you're free to buy it or not, well, maybe it could be improved a bit that way. But what am I saying, wishing that I could forfeit having to pay for services that I did not request. How childish of me.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
Wow, no good deed goes unpunished. I went out of my way to be friendly and explicitly give you the benefit of the doubt, and you respond with this outright incivility? Anyway, as you will....
Go educate yourself and read up on the earlier parts of the thread. The undeniable truth is that illegal immigrants do not contribute more to the system than they take out of it. There are multiple articles cited above demonstrating that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country. More importantly, they are a very severe net drain upon states and communities where there are large communities of illegal immigrants. Yes, some illegal immigrants pay taxes. However, they do not even come close to, as a group, paying enough taxes to cover all of the social benefits that they use. THAT is why the Arizona bill was passed and THAT is why most Americans support it and would like to see similar measures enacted in their states or at a national level.
Yes, I am deliberately discourteous cause you failed to confirm that share the same country bumpkin viewspoints. Also I must go educate myself simply because I have opposing view points! Also don't vaguely elude to some statements like I need to go search myself in order to respond. How about you post them yourself which exact ideas you are for.
I don't care if people espouse a point of view that disagrees with my own as long as that point of view is informed and grounded in fact. Arguing that illegal immigrants do not constitute a fiscal burden upon the country at both national and state levels (especially at the state level) is proof that your opinion is uneducated on this matter and that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to argue to that illegal immigrants, despite the fiscal burdens, are good for the country, fine. However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all. Sorry, but that is as stupid as it is uninformed.
Anyway, since you're apparently too lazy to go read earlier parts of the thread, here are the main things that you should read:
Stop using ad hominem remarks it will not validate your points! Apparently you firmly believe that those individuals who are under the notion that "illegal" immigrants are NOT a burden are "uneducated". Well that's very bigot of you, I'm just responding with the same chauvinist courtesy. I find it hilarious the rhetoric you're spewing without even questioning it because you're denying natives who are more deserving of their inherited resources than you are.
I also never stated, "However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all" in fact I would like those individuals that do indeed commit crimes to be deported! Most Mexicans have zero tolerance for criminals which just illustrate to you how they treat them in Mexican prison. Their culture carries heavier morals and discipline since 80% percent of them are practicing Catholics.
Also here's some opposing views but I doubt I'll convince you seen you're unwilling to dispose of your already existing prejudices:
The law should be passes nationally. But first like I said we need to secure the border. We should also make it easier for productive people to immigrate here legally.
it did, the az law is a water down version of the federal law, if anything, az is doing the illegals a favor- law wise
I'd love to see what would happen if Arizona actually did get rid of all the illegal immigrants. I imagine the costs of new construction or remodeling would skyrocket so high it would way outweigh any supposed strain they put on the economy.
I worked for a general contractor for a year in Albuquerque in between undergrad and grad school and we were completely dependent on "amigos" to have competitive bids. Demolition, landscaping, block laying, concrete pouring... all bid knowing we'd pay waaaaay under minimum wage. Those guys work hard too, take short breaks and don't get paid extra for overtime.
Most people I encounter with an "It's ILLEGAL, throw them out, DUH" attitude when it comes to this issue have no idea how key illegal labor is in southwestern states (not sure what it's like in the rest of the country). It is not a simple issue. Having worked with a fair number of them personally, the majority of them are good people that just want to work hard and earn some money.
Living in SoCal now, from what I see they are even more key. My land lady did a ton of remodeling on my apt building and my rent rarely went up. And I love the cheap local produce, avocados and strawberries ftw! I live near some businesses that wholesale bricks and outdoor flooring, tons of guys waiting around and getting picked up every day.
I honestly can't imagine a "solution" to the illegal immigration "problem" that would go well. Deport them all, at a huge law enforcement expense? Build a wall??? Watch tons of American businesses that depend on them go under or drop minimum wage to $1.25? Force people on unemployment and welfare to do physical labor?
That's why politicians have generally left it alone, execpt for the occasional empty "We need reform!" campaign speech. It's political suicide to actually mess with it. Those Arizona lawmakers are toast once the effects of the boycotts start to hit the economy.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: To all the people whining about illegal immigration: what have illegal immigrants done to you?
Nothing directly. There are others who may have had bad personal experiences, but I haven't.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What is the difference between an illegal immigrant to a legal one?
The answer is in the question. What's the difference between a legal firearm and an illegal one? Or for the matter, legal drugs and illegal drugs? It's a stupid question. The difference is the process or circumstances which make one legal and the latter illegal.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: Why do you feel entitled in forcing one to leave and the other one not?
I do not feel entitled to force anyone to do anything personally. The government on the other hand is completely entitled to force illegal immigrants to leave because they were never given permission to come here in the first place.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: To all the people whining about a loss of jobs or income: do you feel entitled to have a job?
No, I don't feel that I'm entitled to a job, but a government has a responsibility to protect the interest of its citizens. Foreign interests are secondary to this, particularly if those foreign interests are not acting legally while I am.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What is it that an illegal immigrant is being so unfair in doing that a legal immigrant cannot do?
They're essentially "cutting the line" by running across the border when thousands of people all over the world are doing things the right way to come here legally. If you cannot see what's wrong with that, then I really cannot help you.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: Why do you feel entitled in forcing them to do anything?
I am not entitled to anything. The government, however, is. This is the United States of America and the law of the land reigns supreme within these borders.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: To all the people whining about a loss of GDP: what's bad about a lower GDP?
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What can an illegal immigrant do to lower the GDP that a legal immigrant cannot?
Considering the complex nature of how GDP's are calculated, I honestly cannot answer this. Maybe you should be asking someone who's good with economics.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: Why do you feel entitled in doing whatever it takes to keep GDP up?
It's not that we're "entitled in doing whatever it takes to keep GDP up", it's that economic growth is a positive thing for this nation and therefore, we are going to do what we can to increase it.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: To all the people whining about misused public funds: if the public funds are there to "help the public", why is it a misuse?
It's misuse because it's meant to help the tax-paying public and legal residents of this country. By your logic, it would not be misuse of public funds to take all the money and send it to Africa to help the public there. The word, "public" in this case refers to (or at least is supposed to) a specific group of people.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What taxes can an illegal immigrant forfeit that a legal immigrant cannot?
Illegal immigrants technically don't exist so far as the government is concerned so theoretically, they can evade every tax except for the ones attached to the goods they buy. Of course anyone else can choose to evade every tax as well, but there are legal implications to doing that for everyone else. This is not to say illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. A lot of them actually do. But a good number of them don't and that causes issues.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote:Why do you feel entitled to manage the public funds? (tricky question, maybe)
While I do not personally feel entitled to manage public funds, I do feel entitled as part of the tax-paying community to have a voice in how these public funds garnered through taxes are spent. You may understand that when the government takes 40% of my salary in taxes and uses it to subsidize the living of someone who doesn't rather than in things that benefit me and my community, I may have a problem with that. This is particularly the case when that 40% of my income that they take away has a drastic effect on my quality of life and sometimes, my ability to pay my own bills.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
Wow, no good deed goes unpunished. I went out of my way to be friendly and explicitly give you the benefit of the doubt, and you respond with this outright incivility? Anyway, as you will....
Go educate yourself and read up on the earlier parts of the thread. The undeniable truth is that illegal immigrants do not contribute more to the system than they take out of it. There are multiple articles cited above demonstrating that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country. More importantly, they are a very severe net drain upon states and communities where there are large communities of illegal immigrants. Yes, some illegal immigrants pay taxes. However, they do not even come close to, as a group, paying enough taxes to cover all of the social benefits that they use. THAT is why the Arizona bill was passed and THAT is why most Americans support it and would like to see similar measures enacted in their states or at a national level.
Yes, I am deliberately discourteous cause you failed to confirm that share the same country bumpkin viewspoints. Also I must go educate myself simply because I have opposing view points! Also don't vaguely elude to some statements like I need to go search myself in order to respond. How about you post them yourself which exact ideas you are for.
I don't care if people espouse a point of view that disagrees with my own as long as that point of view is informed and grounded in fact. Arguing that illegal immigrants do not constitute a fiscal burden upon the country at both national and state levels (especially at the state level) is proof that your opinion is uneducated on this matter and that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to argue to that illegal immigrants, despite the fiscal burdens, are good for the country, fine. However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all. Sorry, but that is as stupid as it is uninformed.
Anyway, since you're apparently too lazy to go read earlier parts of the thread, here are the main things that you should read:
Stop using ad hominem remarks it will not validate your points! Apparently you firmly believe that those individuals who are under the notion that "illegal" immigrants are NOT a burden are "uneducated". Well that's very bigot of you, I'm just responding with the same chauvinist courtesy. I find it hilarious the rhetoric you're spewing without even questioning it because you're denying natives who are more deserving of their inherited resources than you are.
I also never stated, "However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all" in fact I would like those individuals that do indeed commit crimes to be deported! Most Mexicans have zero tolerance for criminals which just illustrate to you how they treat them in Mexican prison. Their culture carries heavier morals and discipline since 80% percent of them are practicing Catholics.
Also here's some opposing views but I doubt I'll convince you seen you're unwilling to dispose of your already existing prejudices:
Don't look at me and complain about ad hominem attacks. You're the guy that decided to be " deliberately discourteous" as you so eloquently put it earlier. Also, I never once attacked you personally. Just your opinions. Now, whether the stupidity of some of the things that you have said reflect poorly upon you personally is something that's up to the audience. And yes, anyone who does not recognize the burdens that illegal immigrants pose is either uneducated or grossly ignorant. I've give you plenty of information to arm yourself for intelligent conversation on the topic. I even gave you a valid argument on which you could stand. What you do with those is up to you.
Anyway, let's turn to your authorities:
[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN26407393] This article is not on point. Again, you are confusing the issue of how illegal immigrants affect the US as a whole and how illegal immigrants affect local communities. On a national level, no, illegal immigrants aren't going to over-burden the health system because most communities around the USA do not have large illegal populations. Now, how illegal immigrants affect just Arizona is another matter. If you can't even understand this basic concept of national vs local effects of illegal immigration, you should just quit now.
[http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006-12-15/us/illegal_immigrants_not_burden_health_care.htm] [http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=162600004] So here you have two articles quoting two studies. One study says illegal immigrants cost $1.1 billion nationally for health care. The other says that the cost is $1.4 billion for Los Angeles alone. A good family friend of mine is a CFO at a major hospital in California. I assure you that the latter study is the more accurate one.
[http://www.examiner.com/x-21635-El-Paso-Culture-Examiner~y2009m12d29-Illegal-Immigrants-do-not-drain-public-services] This article is a joke. No citations. Just unsubstantiated garbage. His claim that illegal immigrants pay high levels of taxes, especially that they pay enough taxes to cover their services, is pure bullshit. Most illegal immigrants do not pay taxes because they have to stay off the grid for obvious reasons. Go find a study with real facts and citations like the ones that I posted.
[http://www.visalaw.com/h09nov/13hnov09.html] This article has the same problems as the Reuters article.
[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/illegals-medica.html] This article also isn't on point. It talks about doctors suing over MediCal (medicaid for California) reimbursements. As the doctors pointed out, medicaid does not concern illegal immigrants. What the article does not discuss is how hospitals and medical providers are often left uncompensated for treatment that they give to illegal immigrants. That's another topic.
None of these articles are particularly useful or on point. Furthermore, they only address health care, which is not even the biggest problem. Where are you authorities on how illegal immigration increases state education costs? How about the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens that are criminals? Go back to the drawing board, tiger.
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..
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What is the difference between an illegal immigrant to a legal one?
The answer is in the question. What's the difference between a legal firearm and an illegal one? Or for the matter, legal drugs and illegal drugs? It's a stupid question. The difference is the process or circumstances which make one legal and the latter illegal.
The process in which the state gave their approval or disapproval to some of them, right?
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: Why do you feel entitled in forcing one to leave and the other one not?
I do not feel entitled to force anyone to do anything personally. The government on the other hand is completely entitled to force illegal immigrants to leave because they were never given permission to come here in the first place.
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...
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: To all the people whining about a loss of jobs or income: do you feel entitled to have a job?
No, I don't feel that I'm entitled to a job, but a government has a responsibility to protect the interest of its citizens. Foreign interests are secondary to this, particularly if those foreign interests are not acting legally while I am.
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?
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What is it that an illegal immigrant is being so unfair in doing that a legal immigrant cannot do?
They're essentially "cutting the line" by running across the border when thousands of people all over the world are doing things the right way to come here legally. If you cannot see what's wrong with that, then I really cannot help you.
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.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: Why do you feel entitled in forcing them to do anything?
I am not entitled to anything. The government, however, is. This is the United States of America and the law of the land reigns supreme within these borders.
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)
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What can an illegal immigrant do to lower the GDP that a legal immigrant cannot?
Considering the complex nature of how GDP's are calculated, I honestly cannot answer this. Maybe you should be asking someone who's good with economics.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: Why do you feel entitled in doing whatever it takes to keep GDP up?
It's not that we're "entitled in doing whatever it takes to keep GDP up", it's that economic growth is a positive thing for this nation and therefore, we are going to do what we can to increase it.
"economy growth" =/= gdp growth, at the very least not necessarily so. (if I got the least understanding of what you mean by "economy")
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: To all the people whining about misused public funds: if the public funds are there to "help the public", why is it a misuse?
It's misuse because it's meant to help the tax-paying public and legal residents of this country. By your logic, it would not be misuse of public funds to take all the money and send it to Africa to help the public there. The word, "public" in this case refers to (or at least is supposed to) a specific group of people.
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.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote: What taxes can an illegal immigrant forfeit that a legal immigrant cannot?
Illegal immigrants technically don't exist so far as the government is concerned so theoretically, they can evade every tax except for the ones attached to the goods they buy. Of course anyone else can choose to evade every tax as well, but there are legal implications to doing that for everyone else. This is not to say illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. A lot of them actually do. But a good number of them don't and that causes issues.
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.
On May 13 2010 08:15 Yurebis wrote:Why do you feel entitled to manage the public funds? (tricky question, maybe)
While I do not personally feel entitled to manage public funds, I do feel entitled as part of the tax-paying community to have a voice in how these public funds garnered through taxes are spent. You may understand that when the government takes 40% of my salary in taxes and uses it to subsidize the living of someone who doesn't rather than in things that benefit me and my community, I may have a problem with that. This is particularly the case when that 40% of my income that they take away has a drastic effect on my quality of life and sometimes, my ability to pay my own bills.
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
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.
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.
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...
wow yurebis you are truly idiotic 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 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 now they want to change that and kick out these free loaders i fail to see what you are arguing against here
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
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
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. In your analogy, the obvious solution would be to eat the costs and then kick the Mexicans out and never let them come again.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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 10:52 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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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 10:52 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 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 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 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 10:05 Yurebis wrote: Ok, so the government owns all land.
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 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 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 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)
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?
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.
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?
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 11:51 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 11:24 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.
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 11:51 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 11:11 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 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 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 11:11 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 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.
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 12:00 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 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.
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 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 12:00 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 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.
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: People don't understand that this country can only support a limited number of immigrants per year.
What is that number, and how did you or the state come to know it?
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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?
How is a mexican crossing the border impeding someone from moving in? Directly, impossible. If you mean the state is tightening quotas due to illegal immigration, well, then, I'd say it's the state's decision, and the state's making alone that's making it difficult for others to come
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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.
I see very terrifying things about americans too, like, wanting to blow up the middle east and stuff. No merit in either argument.
My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
I never seen the problem with being asked for ID by any police officer in any country. Seems like that is just part of their job. If you got a problem with the politics go fight that. Do not get mad at the police for being given a few tools to make them able to do their job better.
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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.
That was a WTF moment for me too as a member of the ACLU. Personally, I want to work towards an America where nobody is offended by a damn American flag. But it takes work.
I don't think anyone is saying (except for some libertarians who want cheap labor etc etc) that we shouldn't enforce border controls. Most people I know in the ACLU don't consider the price payed in personal liberty to be worth the rounding up of a handful of immigrants already in the US.
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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.
That was a WTF moment for me too as a member of the ACLU. Personally, I want to work towards an America where nobody is offended by a damn American flag. But it takes work.
I don't think anyone is saying (except for some libertarians who want cheap labor etc etc) that we shouldn't enforce border controls. Most people I know in the ACLU don't consider the price payed in personal liberty to be worth the rounding up of a handful of immigrants already in the US.
Why do you keep calling them immigrants? They are not immigrants. They are illegals.
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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.
That was a WTF moment for me too as a member of the ACLU. Personally, I want to work towards an America where nobody is offended by a damn American flag. But it takes work.
I don't think anyone is saying (except for some libertarians who want cheap labor etc etc) that we shouldn't enforce border controls. Most people I know in the ACLU don't consider the price payed in personal liberty to be worth the rounding up of a handful of immigrants already in the US.
Why do you keep calling them immigrants? They are not immigrants. They are illegals.
Granted. I almost edited it to say illegal immigrant but figured it wasn't worth it. I know they are illegals.
Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
I think I already said it in my first post in the thread? Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 12 2010 10:07 poor newb wrote: you get what you vote for
If memory serves correctly, california voted to not give illegal immigrants benefits, like welfare, but the state courts overturned this.
personally, as long as illegal immigrants are paying a share of the taxes and are productive members of society, that's ok with me. and if they aren't, then they can go defecate on themselves.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
I think I already said it in my first post in the thread? Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
I find it a bit fun. Not gonna lie.
You're making no sense again. Perhaps you should move to Mexico illegally and see how they like it.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
I'm having fun seeing how much of an idiot he is. I spend 30 seconds on my replies to him while he writes a whole dissertation while responding nonsense.
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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?
How is a mexican crossing the border impeding someone from moving in? Directly, impossible. If you mean the state is tightening quotas due to illegal immigration, well, then, I'd say it's the state's decision, and the state's making alone that's making it difficult for others to come
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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.
I see very terrifying things about americans too, like, wanting to blow up the middle east and stuff. No merit in either argument.
I know some people who believe that it is a human's natural right to live wherever they want. People also believe they have other natural rights, such as the right to have kids, the right to make a decent living, the right to a bed at night, etc.
Unfortunately, when one faces reality, they quickly find out that only those who are strong enough to defend their rights actually has any rights. Other wise, someone who is strong enough will infringe upon them. For example, if there is only limited food, and one person has a gun and the other doesn't, the one with the gun will get the food.
If citizens in a country want to keep their rights, they must defend them. If illegal immigrants are putting a financial strain on the country, perhaps some citizens will lose their jobs, or their taxes will increase. There may be more competition in general for land, etc. Therefore, if one group wants to keep its rights of a certain lifestyle, they must restrain the rights of immigrants to immigrate. There cannot be both.
Particular problems arise when one culturally cohesive group invades a non-cohesive group. The more cohesive the group, the stronger it is. Therefore, all cultures must be cohesive, or at least equally non-cohesive, to avoid getting destroyed. All the arguments of "its good for the economy" etc, fail to address this point. Immigrants send money back to their own country or keep it within their community, because of there cohesiveness. They compete with citizens while avoiding competition among themselves if possible.
As long as one group is more cohesive than another, there is an asymmetric war. If one group is gaining wealth, the other is losing it. I'm sorry the world isn't idealistic.
On May 13 2010 12:57 Yurebis wrote: I think I already said it in my first post in the thread? Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California.
That was as meaningless as it was obvious. Of course illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. Illegal narcotics are also just narcotics shunned upon by the state. Slicing someone's throat open in a dispute is just a manner of dispute resolution shunned upon by the state. Otherwise, all these things are just normal everyday things...
If you've no respect for or belief in state sovereignty, then that's your business. But I assure you that just about every single country, state, province, and municipality in the world disagrees with you. Arguing against it is as pointless and impractical as arguing against the concept of currency.
On May 12 2010 10:07 poor newb wrote: you get what you vote for
If memory serves correctly, california voted to not give illegal immigrants benefits, like welfare, but the state courts overturned this.
personally, as long as illegal immigrants are paying a share of the taxes and are productive members of society, that's ok with me. and if they aren't, then they can go defecate on themselves.
Problem is that illegals mostly leech from the government. I have no problem keeping all the high earners(above 100k) and buisiness owners who are illegal. They can stay. everyone else who makes pennies and steals US jobs should go back to Mexico or wherever else they came from assuming they aren't mexican citizens.
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected.
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected.
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
I think I already said it in my first post in the thread? Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California.
On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
I find it a bit fun. Not gonna lie.
You're making no sense again. Perhaps you should move to Mexico illegally and see how they like it.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
I'm having fun seeing how much of an idiot he is. I spend 30 seconds on my replies to him while he writes a whole dissertation while responding nonsense.
Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment for actually spending time and thought in my responses, and not just calling people idiots.
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us.
On May 13 2010 13:07 Yurebis wrote: What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
The point is that the system doesn't allow them to. They are not allowed to be here in the first place. You're essentially blaming the restaurant for people breaking in and stealing food off the plates of the paying customers. If that happened, would you seriously fault the restaurant or would you say that the guy breaking in and stealing food your food was an asshole? Then when the restaurant decides to throw out the people stealing food, you're accusing them of being unreasonable by throwing them out because the restaurant is an arbitrary piece of property defined by the restaurant owner and without that arbitrary boundary it would just be normal for people to be able to walk onto that land whenever they want at their own leisure. So following your logic, not only should the restaurant not throw them out, it should make no effort to stop them from coming and and continuing to eat off the customer's plates... Can you seriously not see the absurdity of what you're arguing here?
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
Who the hell cares about food? We're talking about illegals not some food regulation.
Overall he is trying to argue in favor of complete anarchy, so yes this does fall along the same lines.
You mean the Y guy? He's just making shit up as he goes. I entertain him with a few nibblets to chew and laugh as he frantically tries to come up with 1/2 a page of BS to try to confuse me.
maybe he is a clever little HS kid practicing for a speech and debate tournament spews a lot of shit that sound kinda ok but, in essence, meaningless and completely bullshit
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: People don't understand that this country can only support a limited number of immigrants per year.
What is that number, and how did you or the state come to know it?
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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?
How is a mexican crossing the border impeding someone from moving in? Directly, impossible. If you mean the state is tightening quotas due to illegal immigration, well, then, I'd say it's the state's decision, and the state's making alone that's making it difficult for others to come
On May 13 2010 12:30 fight_or_flight wrote: 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.
I see very terrifying things about americans too, like, wanting to blow up the middle east and stuff. No merit in either argument.
I know some people who believe that it is a human's natural right to live wherever they want. People also believe they have other natural rights, such as the right to have kids, the right to make a decent living, the right to a bed at night, etc.
I do not claim to have such rights, I'm approaching it from an economical point of view. If you want X, you should do X. Regretably, it turns out that the best means for you to own your piece of land, is to not have a state claiming power over it, since, that means the state actually owns your land, not you, got it? If you want to have a state, then yeah, you should have a state. If you want to deport people for arbitrary reasons, you should deport people for arbitrary reasons. However, to claim that it is for the "public good", or for the GDP, is a hilariously broken argument that has yet to be demonstrated to be true. Am I being dishonest by asking people these unanswered questions?
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote: Unfortunately, when one faces reality, they quickly find out that only those who are strong enough to defend their rights actually has any rights. Other wise, someone who is strong enough will infringe upon them. For example, if there is only limited food, and one person has a gun and the other doesn't, the one with the gun will get the food.
Might makes right? I can put up with that. Is that the image that the state tries to expose to people? No, it is not. If it would be, it would in fact become unpopular fairly quickly.
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote: If citizens in a country want to keep their rights, they must defend them. If illegal immigrants are putting a financial strain on the country, perhaps some citizens will lose their jobs, or their taxes will increase. There may be more competition in general for land, etc. Therefore, if one group wants to keep its rights of a certain lifestyle, they must restrain the rights of immigrants to immigrate. There cannot be both.
Where are the illegals putting a strain that is not freely given to them by the very system you hold to be accounted for? Again, you are blaming the freeloaders in a soup kitchen which you pay for. -Are the illegals "stealing" jobs from the legals(I'll be using that term from now on)? No, since the legals are not entitled to a job, the employers choose from the lowest demanding employee. -More competition for land? Is land really that scarce for you? More competition is no threat to any economy, it means there's more demand or supply, it can be dealt with productively, and not as a public hazard like any bureaucrat wants you to believe it is. More demand means more profit opportunity, more supply means cheaper products and services, either way, people can cope without pulling out a gun. -If one group wants to keep it's peaceful lifestyles, more often than not, it can do so without state regulation... now if violence and war is your lifestyle, then that's the go-to place indeed.
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote: Particular problems arise when one culturally cohesive group invades a non-cohesive group. The more cohesive the group, the stronger it is. Therefore, all cultures must be cohesive, or at least equally non-cohesive, to avoid getting destroyed.
What's the problem with that? Culture is not forcefully binding, unless you mean, a state comes into power and legislate that everyone must perform a certain ritual or face punishment... ...unless you mean, government is protecting people's culture by restricting other cultures from coming in? But that would be silly, why do you need government to protect something that can only be voluntarily transmitted?
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote: All the arguments of "its good for the economy" etc, fail to address this point. Immigrants send money back to their own country or keep it within their community, because of there cohesiveness. They compete with citizens while avoiding competition among themselves if possible.
And people could donate to Haiti, wasting precious resources elsewhere! What you fail to address is that people have different goals, and they can only perform them best if left to decide... Government regulation can only restrict people's goals, and people's priorities and means may change, but their ends do not.
On May 13 2010 13:05 fight_or_flight wrote: As long as one group is more cohesive than another, there is an asymmetric war. If one group is gaining wealth, the other is losing it. I'm sorry the world isn't idealistic.
That is far too brief. Could you perhaps illustrate how is it that one's wealth gain impoverishes another's?
On May 13 2010 12:57 Yurebis wrote: I think I already said it in my first post in the thread? Illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. It is otherwise just regular immigration, and there's no reason to oppose it any more than you'd oppose someone for moving from Nevada to California.
That was as meaningless as it was obvious. Of course illegal immigration is just immigration shunned upon by the state. Illegal narcotics are also just narcotics shunned upon by the state. Slicing someone's throat open in a dispute is just a manner of dispute resolution shunned upon by the state. Otherwise, all these things are just normal everyday things...
If you've no respect for or belief in state sovereignty, then that's your business. But I assure you that just about every single country, state, province, and municipality in the world disagrees with you. Arguing against it is as pointless and impractical as arguing against the concept of currency.
Negative. Illegal immigration is a different thing, since there's even less to objectively discern people for. Theft and murder can be discerned and observably disgraceful in countless societies. Drugs can have certain characteristics, and the ones that are more mind-altering can arguably be restricted for having no good purpose to anyone (though I disagree as well, it's another topic).
However, there's nothing in people being born in different places that tells that one is a productive person and the other one is not. People can be productive everywhere, for all sorts of purposes, and the state does a failing job trying to restrict it. So much because there is still demand for illegal aliens to work here, so much because it is so still, with millions in fact. To keep this broken premise as an unfailing axiom, with no logic behind it is just wishful thinking.
Is it asking too much for people to elaborate why they feel people born elsewhere can be such a threat to them, that they should be forcibly restricted from freely moving here, for everyone's benefit? Or do I just have to accept it and shut up?
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah.
On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected.
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
Wait, welfare programs meant for US citizens? How are the illegals able to enroll in them, if they don't have any proof of citizenship? And why can't the state simply require proper documents if it's true? Instead of you know, spending another bajillion dollars deporting everyone back. (Only so they can enter the country again through the same means, because you know, the market demand for them hasn't been altered)
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us.
Ha.
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
And why do you think they would not do so without such regulation, as it supplies the demand for it, a demand noticeable given that voters wanted it as well?
On May 13 2010 13:07 Yurebis wrote: What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
The point is that the system doesn't allow them to. They are not allowed to be here in the first place. You're essentially blaming the restaurant for people breaking in and stealing food off the plates of the paying customers. If that happened, would you seriously fault the restaurant or would you say that the guy breaking in and stealing food your food was an asshole? Then when the restaurant decides to throw out the people stealing food, you're accusing them of being unreasonable by throwing them out because the restaurant is an arbitrary piece of property defined by the restaurant owner and without that arbitrary boundary it would just be normal for people to be able to walk onto that land whenever they want at their own leisure. So following your logic, not only should the restaurant not throw them out, it should make no effort to stop them from coming and and continuing to eat off the customer's plates... Can you seriously not see the absurdity of what you're arguing here?
Okay, so the restaurant has an open door, doesn't require people to prove their "restaurant membership", just gives them the food, and you're blaming people for taking it, because they're not really members?
Really? That's an awfully broken system that's been purposely devised that way. Make them require social security numbers at those places, problem solved. Make them pay for it, problem solved.
It's not really that hard solving problems without using the cops... people used to be praised for that in fact, but today it seems like it's the opposite. I'm the one being called an idiot for trying to, heh.
The economics of illegal immigration, deporting, etc are way too complicated for me. Not smart enough for it. Not gonna try.
I like to think of it more like: "Hey, I'd like to sleep on your couch. I promise I won't steal anything or make a mess. I'll even sweep your living room." "Thanks, but I'd really rather you didn't." "Well, that's fine. Your door locks aren't so great. I can get in without damaging anything, or anyone noticing. You won't even know I was here. Thanks!"
I don't think this law was made in good spirit, and it really isn't a good idea. But anyone defending illegal immigrants needs to get a clue. The word is right there. Illegal. Advocate immigration law reform if you will; something probably needs to be done if the problem is as systemic as it's made to seem. Illegal immigrants, right now, are breaking US law, period.
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
Who the hell cares about food? We're talking about illegals not some food regulation.
Overall he is trying to argue in favor of complete anarchy, so yes this does fall along the same lines.
You mean the Y guy? He's just making shit up as he goes. I entertain him with a few nibblets to chew and laugh as he frantically tries to come up with 1/2 a page of BS to try to confuse me.
On May 13 2010 13:19 phosphorylation wrote: maybe he is a clever little HS kid practicing for a speech and debate tournament spews a lot of shit that sound kinda ok but, in essence, meaningless and completely bullshit
I have started really slow, posing a small series of questions, and only one person has bothered to answer them. I then proceeded to re-explain my position multiple times as to why it is far more ethical and efficient to complain to the soup kitchen owner about giving free soup to those who "don't deserve it", so I don't know what to do anymore. You just seem to be invested in the idea that deporting is the only way to go. And I haven't even gotten into the economics of how costly it would be to deport >10 million people all over the country either... but bureaucrats don't really care about costs indeed, they just do it, the money isn't theirs, nor is it yours, right? Heh.
Do go ahead and show me where I'm wrong please... instead of just insulting... pretty please.
On May 13 2010 13:47 allluckysevens7777 wrote: The economics of illegal immigration, deporting, etc are way too complicated for me. Not smart enough for it. Not gonna try.
I like to think of it more like: "Hey, I'd like to sleep on your couch. I promise I won't steal anything or make a mess. I'll even sweep your living room." "Thanks, but I'd really rather you didn't." "Well, that's fine. Your door locks aren't so great. I can get in without damaging anything, or anyone noticing. You won't even know I was here. Thanks!"
I don't think this law was made in good spirit, and it really isn't a good idea. But anyone defending illegal immigrants needs to get a clue. The word is right there. Illegal. Advocate immigration law reform if you will; something probably needs to be done if the problem is as systemic as it's made to seem. Illegal immigrants, right now, are breaking US law, period.
If no one noticed he's there, then does it matter he's there? And if someone did notice, why not talk to him, require him to pay rent, and then if that fails, arrest him like you would anyone else?
I'm not de-facto defending illegal immigrants, I'm just saying, some people do want him there, since he's working for less, since he's renting someplace. The products and services he offers and is able to trade does help the other side of the exchange. The illegal is not an animal simply consuming, stealing everything he can... and if he were, well, he could be treated just like another criminal; doesn't really matter if he's illegal or not in that case.
If the system is so open that anyone can walk in and take what they want without noticing and being accounted for... well, then perhaps people ought to stop funding it? Or put a lock in it? Or require the users to pay? There's a tons of ways to fix that business model without forcing people out...
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah.
On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected.
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
Wait, welfare programs meant for US citizens? How are the illegals able to enroll in them, if they don't have any proof of citizenship? And why can't the state simply require proper documents if it's true? Instead of you know, spending another bajillion dollars deporting everyone back. (Only so they can enter the country again through the same means, because you know, the market demand for them hasn't been altered)
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us.
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
And why do you think they would not do so without such regulation, as it supplies the demand for it, a demand noticeable given that voters wanted it as well?
Your ignorance on the matter is astounding. Illegals utilize education, medical, and incarceration services that are paid for predominantly by the state. Now, in earlier posts you have made the absolutely bewildering argument that we should not punish illegals for using those services, but rather we should punish the system (or change the system) that provides those services. Unfortunately, that is the one solution that cannot work or be implemented. If we did try that, we'd be creating a 15-20 million member disenfranchised population within the United States that was deprived of all access to health care and education, effectively preventing that population from ever being able to integrate within American culture at large. Do you know what happens when you have populations like that? Look at Israel for an extreme example or look at France for a milder one. At best, we'd have periodic riots. At worst, we'd have terrorism.
Unfortunately, the US cannot deprive the current population of illegals from access to the services that they have now. The only thing that can be done is to prevent the illegal population from growing any further and do whatever is practical to reduce the population of illegals that is already here. No, the US cannot deport everybody. However, there needs to be a much greater degree of enforcement of laws and a higher incidence of deportation if for no other reason than to deter illegals from coming here in the first place. Combine that with actual border security, and things will get better.
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?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah.
On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected.
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: 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.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
Wait, welfare programs meant for US citizens? How are the illegals able to enroll in them, if they don't have any proof of citizenship? And why can't the state simply require proper documents if it's true? Instead of you know, spending another bajillion dollars deporting everyone back. (Only so they can enter the country again through the same means, because you know, the market demand for them hasn't been altered)
On May 13 2010 13:11 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 13:09 Yurebis wrote:
On May 13 2010 13:00 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:58 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us.
Ha.
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
And why do you think they would not do so without such regulation, as it supplies the demand for it, a demand noticeable given that voters wanted it as well?
Your ignorance on the matter is astounding. Illegals utilize education, medical, and incarceration services that are paid for predominantly by the state.
And the state taxes everyone... Illegals pay property taxes, indirect taxes, and more taxes I sure don't know about.
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote: Now, in earlier posts you have made the absolutely bewildering argument that we should not punish illegals for using those services, but rather we should punish the system (or change the system) that provides those services.
Require them to pay, or don't give them the services. It's pretty common in like, regular businesses around the world.
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote:Unfortunately, that is the one solution that cannot work or be implemented. If we did try that, we'd be creating a 15-20 million member disenfranchised population within the United States that was deprived of all access to health care and education
Negative, they can look for private ones. Did all the people in communist russia starve when the bread lines were taken down? No, the demand was still there, and it was supplied for profit...
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote:, effectively preventing that population from ever being able to integrate within American culture at large. Do you know what happens when you have populations like that? Look at Israel for an extreme example or look at France for a milder one. At best, we'd have periodic riots. At worst, we'd have terrorism.
There should be terrorism as is, since they are denied for a large part of services and plans which *do* require SSNs... hell, even for a driver's license you need proof of citizenship. Why aren't there riots for that? I mean... sorry but that's quite the fear mongering argument there.
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote: Unfortunately, the US cannot deprive the current population of illegals from access to the services that they have now. The only thing that can be done is to prevent the illegal population from growing any further and do whatever is practical to reduce the population of illegals that is already here. No, the US cannot deport everybody. However, there needs to be a much greater degree of enforcement of laws and a higher incidence of deportation if for no other reason than to deter illegals from coming here in the first place. Combine that with actual border security, and things will get better.
It's going to be more expensive than if you just required SSNs or require payment for those without...
Why is it such an outrageous idea to make people pay for services? I mean... you guys say I'm being ignorant, but I really don't get it why the only options are "FREE" or "BE GONE"...
On May 13 2010 13:53 Weedman wrote: How about we don't answer you dumb questions and just return to insulting you.
Everytime someone says how you are wrong you answer with:
Derpaderp derp mcderp show me how I am wrong please hmmmmm?
Theres a spaceship and da aliens let some other aliens on blah blah blah racism derp total bullshit derp restaurants and magnets wtf. stfu.
Why are they dumb? Do point out. I'd like to know... I though I was really good at sneaking in empty arguments in my posts, but you guys just do it in the open, and accuse me of doing it! That's pro.
I've been following this thread for a bit and I just had to jump in and back up yurebis. I have to admit its been kind of funny seeing you all break down from writing legitimate arguments to just insutling him, but in reality it's pretty sad. The restaurant analogy is genious. I'm having a hard time understanding how you guys can't make sense out of it ( no offense). The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be the core of your argument.)
On May 13 2010 14:06 lenin wrote: I've been following this thread for a bit and I just had to jump in and back up yurebis. I have to admit its been kind of funny seeing you all break down from writing legitimate arguments to just insutling him, but in reality it's pretty sad. The restaurant analogy is genious. I'm having a hard time understanding how you guys can't make sense out of it ( no offense). The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be your basic premise).
That is exactly correct, thanks for the pat on the back. Oh, that rhymes.
If you have no natural rights issues with illegal immigration, than the cultural issues are enough to make it illegal. I wonder how it feels to endanger your safety by wearing an American flag shirt to school? I wonder what its like for a kid applying to a mexican restaurant for a summer job? (I guess there is no discrimination when immigrants don't hire you) Not wanting your way of life to be invaded is a valid reason for wanting to limit immigration. There is one reason for you.
Second, your economic-only reasons still don't make any sense. People keep mentioning medical care, schooling, etc. While these are definitely strains to the economy, the real thing that people don't think about is that immigrants have 2 or 3 important characteristics that damage the economy. 1) They take money out of the country and send it back to their own country. 2) They don't go into debt. New debt is how the economy is sustained, because money is debt. If they aren't acquiring new debt, they aren't helping the economy. For example, using credit cards, buying a house, or buying a car puts money in the economy. 3) They keep money in their own communities. Whereas a white person may hire either another white person or a mexican, eat at mexican restaurants, or get their car fixed at a mexican auto shop, an illegal immigrant will likely only hire another mexican, largely eat at mexican restaurants, and hire another mexican to fix their car. The result is a net transfer of money.
So for both cultural and economic reasons, it doesn't make sense to have large autonomous communities of illegal immigrants. You can argue with my economic reasons forever since its a screwed up subject, but cultural reasons alone clearly demonstrate a reason to limit immigration.
It's funny that you keep repeating that even though we've already seen that irregular migrants create a surplus in medicine, Furthermore, you've been completely unable to show that they create an overall negative effect on the economy (probably because the opposite is true.) I'm sure there's a cost to the legal system, however given they actually commit crimes at lower rates than American citizens, a large burden of the cost is simply put towards the system trying to stop them. Not only is this law going to drastically increase the operating costs of Arizona PDs, but the ridiculous borders that have been erected over the past 10 years have been costly and wasteful. The Pew Center also conducted a report on it, that I can't find now.
Half of the irregular migrants in the US are from Mexico and among that, the majority are single young , wage-seeking men. You're (CIS is) drastically overestimating the cost to services like education, compared to the production benefits, increased consumer market (yes, they spend a higher % of income than the average American, as well (on wholesome things like their child's wellbeing, too)) and ignoring the fact that many DO NOT WANT TO LIVE HERE. Most are seasonal migrants and increasing border restrictions actually makes them more likely to become permanent residents.
Furthermore, there's actually easier legislative options that would reduce their cost on services while keeping the productive workforce intact. Unless you're on board with haypee? in thinking that people with BAs are going to suddenly hop into construction and agriculture without training for a couple of years until their normal jobs are restored (and then after that, who fills those jobs?) I certainly wouldn't trust the sturdiness of a house built by them.
And again, you're missing the constitutionality of the law. It has none. "Just carry your papers" is one of the silliest responses out there and what's almost as entertaining is how so-called libertarians have backed away from the issue because they don't want to piss off a moral majority. In fairness, several researchers from CATO remain on board with a pro-immigration stance.
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: If you have no natural rights issues with illegal immigration, than the cultural issues are enough to make it illegal. I wonder how it feels to endanger your safety by wearing an American flag shirt to school? I wonder what its like for a kid applying to a mexican restaurant for a summer job? (I guess there is no discrimination when immigrants don't hire you) Not wanting your way of life to be invaded is a valid reason for wanting to limit immigration. There is one reason for you.
Discrimination, not unlike violence overall... is funnily enough, unprofitable. Schools benefit from keeping discrimination down as it interferes with the "learning process". Employers that discriminate on employees may be missing out good ones and therefore losing an opportunity. (The mexican restaurant not being a good example since the restaurant does usually want mexican employees to keep the mexican... theme. So it has a purpose then... it's not just "I'm gonna screw people over and do a shitty job as an entrepreneur hur hur") Your way of life or culture is under no threat unless that foreign culture is violent, in which case practitioners of such culture can be treated just like criminals, no matter where they come from.
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: Second, your economic-only reasons still don't make any sense. People keep mentioning medical care, schooling, etc. While these are definitely strains to the economy, the real thing that people don't think about is that immigrants have 2 or 3 important characteristics that damage the economy. 1) They take money out of the country and send it back to their own country.
Irrelevant. You have no claim over how people spend their money. Unless you want to be a state bureaucrat and say you do, then pass some regulation restricting people from sending money out in a mercantilist attempt to improve people's lives...
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: 2) They don't go into debt. New debt is how the economy is sustained, because money is debt. If they aren't acquiring new debt, they aren't helping the economy. For example, using credit cards, buying a house, or buying a car puts money in the economy.
... so because the government+banks don't allow them to get credit cards (actually some banks do, I know many illegals with credit cards, loans, mortgages, all of it) the illegals are to blame for not having them? Is that right? Well, blame the government+banks for not allowing them to. Or even better, don't blame anyone, because you don't have a decent claim over people's property.
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: 3) They keep money in their own communities. Whereas a white person may hire either another white person or a mexican, eat at mexican restaurants, or get their car fixed at a mexican auto shop, an illegal immigrant will likely only hire another mexican, largely eat at mexican restaurants, and hire another mexican to fix their car. The result is a net transfer of money
And americans don't particularly go to mexican restaurants as much as mexicans. Okay. How is that bad? It's peoples' choices... that's how the market functions, a bunch of different people, different means, different ends...
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: So for both cultural and economic reasons, it doesn't make sense to have large autonomous communities of illegal immigrants. You can argue with my economic reasons forever since its a screwed up subject, but cultural reasons alone clearly demonstrate a reason to limit immigration.
Can you give me a very simple example why do you *need* a cop to stop someone from culturally invading you? For matters that otherwise can't be seen as a misdemeanor or criminal act? I mean... I really can't see it.
On May 13 2010 14:25 tryclops wrote: I think logical fallacies and flashpoints are currently beating all arguments.
On May 13 2010 14:06 lenin wrote:The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be the core of your argument.)
And that most basic point is retarded. How about we get mad at the government for not getting off their asses and doing something (except for Arizona who realizes this and is actually taking a first step) AND we get mad at the assholes who are undeniably using resources, breaking laws, and abusing the system as well?
While we are at it how about we get mad at protestors who's ideology is blinding them to the truth. Seriously, go look at Mexico's immigration laws and see what they do to illegals there. It is absolutely ridiculous what Americans put up with in comparison because of stupid ideology.
On May 13 2010 14:06 lenin wrote:The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be the core of your argument.)
And that most basic point is retarded. How about we get mad at the government for not getting off their asses and doing something (except for Arizona who realizes this and is actually taking a first step) AND we get mad at the assholes who are undeniably using resources, breaking laws, and abusing the system as well?
1-Because the illegal freeloaders are acting on an economical opportunity that anyone else would take... You're not solving the demand for illegal aliens by just deporting them. It's not a solution. 2- You shun on them because they have no state approval. If a law was passed tomorrow that approved them to, and made them pay for everything as much as anyone else (which I believe they already do though it's not the main point), I doubt you'd still be disapproving.
Why is the state's labeling of whether someone's legal or illegal that important to you? Should the merits not come from the subjects themselves?
On May 13 2010 13:49 Yurebis wrote: If no one noticed he's there, then does it matter he's there? And if someone did notice, why not talk to him, require him to pay rent, and then if that fails, arrest him like you would anyone else?
I'm not de-facto defending illegal immigrants, I'm just saying, some people do want him there, since he's working for less, since he's renting someplace. The products and services he offers and is able to trade does help the other side of the exchange. The illegal is not an animal simply consuming, stealing everything he can... and if he were, well, he could be treated just like another criminal; doesn't really matter if he's illegal or not in that case.
If the system is so open that anyone can walk in and take what they want without noticing and being accounted for... well, then perhaps people ought to stop funding it? Or put a lock in it? Or require the users to pay? There's a tons of ways to fix that business model without forcing people out...
Well, it does matter if nobody's noticed. It's a matter of being able to set reasonable boundaries and limitations on one's own territory (house, nation, what have you). I don't want the police coming into my house and rooting through my things even if they leave no trace. I have nothing to hide, it's just an invasion of my personal territory. As is a citizen of one nation entering another without regard to law. I think that you have a lot of good points there; it's why I said that immigration law probably needs reformed. But under current law, deportation and plain saying "we don't want you here" is entirely justified. And it bothers me when people say "no you have no right to do that". Same reason it bothers me when people get all riled up over marijuana imprisonments. Vote Nader or something. Work within the legal framework to change things, don't just ignore the law. If the Hispanic community in the US is such a powerful economic influence, organize and contribute to a political campaign that supports your views. Don't boycott businesses, it doesn't really serve anyone's best interests in the long run.
On May 13 2010 14:46 Yurebis wrote:1-Because the illegal freeloaders are acting on an economical opportunity that anyone else would take... You're not solving the demand for illegal aliens by just deporting them. It's not a solution. 2- You shun on them because they have no state approval. If a law was passed tomorrow that approved them to, and made them pay for everything as much as anyone else (which I believe they already do though it's not the main point), I doubt you'd still be disapproving.
Why is the state's labeling of whether someone's legal or illegal that important to you? Should the merits not come from the subjects themselves?
I was seriously thinking about getting into it with you Yurebis, but I'm refraining. I'll just end with this...until we come up with solutions this whole entire thing is going nowhere but endless arguing from all sides. We have to shut down the border completely and then go from there.
nothing at all wrong with racial profiling, history has never shown us that it can bite us in the ass.
regardless, it's just another example of governmental bodies completely missing the real issue. i know a pretty large amount of illegal immigrants...many of them have lived in america since they could walk but for one reason or another immigration law makes it almost impossible for them to obtain citizenship (marraige and owning a business that earns 7 figures a year are essentially the easiest ways). All of them are hardworking, honest, humble, and never do anything to break any laws/disrupt peaceful living...in other words, they would be shining examples of great american citizens if it wasn't for the ridiculous immigration laws. most of them came to america to escape the awful living conditions of northern mexico and cartel violence in places like juarez, my gf (who is legal) was born in chihuahua which is a suburb of juarez.
i really don't think people in this thread actually know who most of these illegal immigrants are. in my experience, these are mostly very good people that do not deserve to be essentially hunted like this. on top of that, them sucking up national resources is a joke. sure they can't pay taxes but they can't apply for any medical/welfare benefits either, on top of that it's almost impossible for them to own anything like cars or houses. on top of that, for them to even get work without an ss number they have to either take a huge paycut or do it a whole fucking lot better than their competition (which is often the case). in other words, whatever resources they earn they'll lose anyway to the difficulties of not being a citizen, and im sure even if you were to ask most illegals they would tell you they'd much rather be a citizen then not even if it meant they had to pay taxes.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
Wow, no good deed goes unpunished. I went out of my way to be friendly and explicitly give you the benefit of the doubt, and you respond with this outright incivility? Anyway, as you will....
Go educate yourself and read up on the earlier parts of the thread. The undeniable truth is that illegal immigrants do not contribute more to the system than they take out of it. There are multiple articles cited above demonstrating that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country. More importantly, they are a very severe net drain upon states and communities where there are large communities of illegal immigrants. Yes, some illegal immigrants pay taxes. However, they do not even come close to, as a group, paying enough taxes to cover all of the social benefits that they use. THAT is why the Arizona bill was passed and THAT is why most Americans support it and would like to see similar measures enacted in their states or at a national level.
Yes, I am deliberately discourteous cause you failed to confirm that share the same country bumpkin viewspoints. Also I must go educate myself simply because I have opposing view points! Also don't vaguely elude to some statements like I need to go search myself in order to respond. How about you post them yourself which exact ideas you are for.
I don't care if people espouse a point of view that disagrees with my own as long as that point of view is informed and grounded in fact. Arguing that illegal immigrants do not constitute a fiscal burden upon the country at both national and state levels (especially at the state level) is proof that your opinion is uneducated on this matter and that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to argue to that illegal immigrants, despite the fiscal burdens, are good for the country, fine. However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all. Sorry, but that is as stupid as it is uninformed.
Anyway, since you're apparently too lazy to go read earlier parts of the thread, here are the main things that you should read:
Stop using ad hominem remarks it will not validate your points! Apparently you firmly believe that those individuals who are under the notion that "illegal" immigrants are NOT a burden are "uneducated". Well that's very bigot of you, I'm just responding with the same chauvinist courtesy. I find it hilarious the rhetoric you're spewing without even questioning it because you're denying natives who are more deserving of their inherited resources than you are.
I also never stated, "However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all" in fact I would like those individuals that do indeed commit crimes to be deported! Most Mexicans have zero tolerance for criminals which just illustrate to you how they treat them in Mexican prison. Their culture carries heavier morals and discipline since 80% percent of them are practicing Catholics.
Also here's some opposing views but I doubt I'll convince you seen you're unwilling to dispose of your already existing prejudices:
Don't look at me and complain about ad hominem attacks. You're the guy that decided to be " deliberately discourteous" as you so eloquently put it earlier. Also, I never once attacked you personally. Just your opinions. Now, whether the stupidity of some of the things that you have said reflect poorly upon you personally is something that's up to the audience. And yes, anyone who does not recognize the burdens that illegal immigrants pose is either uneducated or grossly ignorant. I've give you plenty of information to arm yourself for intelligent conversation on the topic. I even gave you a valid argument on which you could stand. What you do with those is up to you.
Anyway, let's turn to your authorities:
[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN26407393] This article is not on point. Again, you are confusing the issue of how illegal immigrants affect the US as a whole and how illegal immigrants affect local communities. On a national level, no, illegal immigrants aren't going to over-burden the health system because most communities around the USA do not have large illegal populations. Now, how illegal immigrants affect just Arizona is another matter. If you can't even understand this basic concept of national vs local effects of illegal immigration, you should just quit now.
[http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006-12-15/us/illegal_immigrants_not_burden_health_care.htm] [http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=162600004] So here you have two articles quoting two studies. One study says illegal immigrants cost $1.1 billion nationally for health care. The other says that the cost is $1.4 billion for Los Angeles alone. A good family friend of mine is a CFO at a major hospital in California. I assure you that the latter study is the more accurate one.
[http://www.examiner.com/x-21635-El-Paso-Culture-Examiner~y2009m12d29-Illegal-Immigrants-do-not-drain-public-services] This article is a joke. No citations. Just unsubstantiated garbage. His claim that illegal immigrants pay high levels of taxes, especially that they pay enough taxes to cover their services, is pure bullshit. Most illegal immigrants do not pay taxes because they have to stay off the grid for obvious reasons. Go find a study with real facts and citations like the ones that I posted.
[http://www.visalaw.com/h09nov/13hnov09.html] This article has the same problems as the Reuters article.
[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/illegals-medica.html] This article also isn't on point. It talks about doctors suing over MediCal (medicaid for California) reimbursements. As the doctors pointed out, medicaid does not concern illegal immigrants. What the article does not discuss is how hospitals and medical providers are often left uncompensated for treatment that they give to illegal immigrants. That's another topic.
None of these articles are particularly useful or on point. Furthermore, they only address health care, which is not even the biggest problem. Where are you authorities on how illegal immigration increases state education costs? How about the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens that are criminals? Go back to the drawing board, tiger.
How is it that illegal immigrants can maintain life support in Arizona/California and seek medical attention without working? Because each individual does work which creates a productive society in which they are being paid BELOW the minimum wage! And those that have committed crimes are sent to federal jail then to ICE to be deported or automatically deported even if it's a minor crime. Most of your statements can be easily refuted with the simple suggestion that illegals are taking the lowest unwanted jobs with the lowest pay possible! These are the jobs that Americans can easily charge $13-20 dollars per hour with medical benefits! Americans have this portrayal of life that they are above any sort of menial labor and will not clean toilets, streets, taking care of other people's children, washing cars, etc. So get off your invisible high horse and acknowledge these people's hard work. And ignore even the minor decadence that they produce since their more of a benefit to American society. Which you so ignorantly consume everyday or receive in every day life.They're surely paying for their upkeep and more!
It's simply that they're being used as a scapegoat for lack of leadership in finding real solutions to fix their own economies! Even an uneducated neanderthal like yourself can understand this simple concept of productivity!
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Okay, so the restaurant has an open door,
If by the door being open, you mean this country is open to people just walking in, it's not. Illegal immigrants don't just walk into this country. They either enter it on false pretenses and never leave or they sneak in. It's not anywhere near as open as just walking through a door.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: doesn't require people to prove their "restaurant membership", just gives them the food, and you're blaming people for taking it, because they're not really members?
It's more like they're sneaking in and picking food off the plates of paying customers rather than the restaurant giving away free food. Citizens pay their taxes and the government provides services for them. The illegal immigrants pretty much come and use those services that LEGAL RESIDENTS paid for. I really don't understand why you keep asserting that the restaurant or the country for the matter is just giving things out. These things are being paid for by the intended consumers. Of course if the restaurant hires security to remove these people, you're probably going to argue that it's their right to be there are eat what they want, which is pretty much what you've done and why this discussion is utterly pointless despite the fact that I've already shown why this is a dumb analogy.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Really? That's an awfully broken system that's been purposely devised that way.
It obviously hasn't been purposely devised for illegal immigrants to come in and burden our tax-paying society.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Make them require social security numbers at those places, problem solved.
So when someone is rushed into the emergency room, we're going to require them to give us social security numbers? When someone is incarcerated, we are going to require them to give us a social security number or else they don't receive the "service" of being incarcerated? Stop being absurd. That aside, how would that be any different in practice than this proposed law in Arizona that's already being flamed to hell? Look at the outrage over suspicious people being asked to prove their legal status. What do you think will happen if we started asking everyone for their legal status wherever they went? Do you seriously think this is a practical answer?
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Make them pay for it, problem solved.
No, problem not solved. In order to be able to make them pay for it, you've got to be able to keep them accountable. When there's no documentation to prove that they even exist, there's no possible way to account for them. This is the inherent problem with illegal immigration.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: It's not really that hard solving problems without using the cops... people used to be praised for that in fact, but today it seems like it's the opposite. I'm the one being called an idiot for trying to, heh.
It's actually quite hard because without law enforcement officials, how would you enforce any solution you propose? If you think it's so easy, why don't you enlighten us with your brilliant method of fixing a legal problem without the use of law enforcement?
Stop being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative... All you're doing is arguing the merit of things based on your idealistic view of how the world SHOULD be without any regard to practicality. Your solutions are simplistic and childish at best and fail to take into account the most obvious things such as human nature and politics. In the real world (where we live) an impractical solution is not a solution at all regardless of how good it may sound or look on paper. You're essentially proposing anarchy, but in your fantasy world, anarchy works because everything will work itself out according to the misguided logic you seem to follow. You may think you're making brilliant arguments, but what the rest of us is hearing is no different from someone saying:
"World peace is easy to achieve. Everyone just has to get along with each other and be friends..."
Well obviously if the problem was so easy to fix, it would have been fixed many times over by now. The fact that a solution hasn't come forth is because there is no simple solution that works in practice. The same applies to the issue of illegal immigration. Just about everyone realizes that there's a problem, but they also realize things aren't so cut and dry. It's obvious we can't just screen everyone in the country and throw out the ones that don't belong here. There would be serious economic and human rights implications there. We can't just cut off all tax-funded services to illegal immigrants because that would mean they would never get educated or be able to have access to healthcare, which would promptly lead to cries of racism and discrimination across the Hispanic community be they founded or not. Apparently we can't even increase the security at the borders to slow down the bleeding because that's "racist" and "xenophobic" too... And most certainly we can't simply continue to tolerate things as they are now because the problem is only getting worse with time. So where the hell in all that do you see a simple solution that doesn't cause a whole bunch of other problems?
I love a meaningful debate as much as the next person over, but this debate is hardly meaningful. On the one hand you talk about how people should pretty much be able to go and live where they want and it's just the government that's being unreasonable by laying down laws regarding who can come and live within its boundaries. Then you talk about how "public money" should be for the good of everyone, legal or not. Then when you talk about solutions to the issue of illegal immigration you say that the solution is to deny them services unless they can prove their legal status or make them directly pay for these services which you should very well know they'd never be able to afford, so it's pretty much indirectly denying them services. How do you go from saying they should be given services to proposing the solution to be denying them services? This is why I really can't take you seriously. Unless you have some sort of solid stance on something, please just stop posting. All you're doing is instigating a meaningless argument for which you have no solidified position or opinion. Your opinion is essentially just the opposite of whoever happens to be posting in response to you at the time.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
Everything you said makes sense except for point 2.
Suing police officers usually ends up being futile and is just a dumb idea...furthermore you're not going to sue for a police officer being a racist prick and making you show papers for no other reason than that you don't look white. Lawsuits cost a lot of money and even more time. That doesn't make this law ok.
This is going to lead to a lot of unfortunate situations where the cop was, indeed, being a racist asshole, and where the victim really can't do anything about it.
You can't solve everything with a lawsuit - most especially cases regarding law enforcement abuse.
On May 13 2010 14:47 allluckysevens7777 wrote: If the Hispanic community in the US is such a powerful economic influence, organize and contribute to a political campaign that supports your views. Don't boycott businesses, it doesn't really serve anyone's best interests in the long run.
Disagreed. Either way, there's a much more important force that's going to keep immigration fairly open, and regardless of what is said publicly, the GOP will not oppose them on the national level, and probably in CA and TX too. Hell, Bush practically handed them 100 billion dollars during his term.
Sorry, it's hard to find a good pic to show Big Agriculture. :\
My mother legally immigrated to the US and later went on to obtain citizenship. I, by extension, also became a citizen. It isn't as difficult to obtain citizenship as some people make it sound. However, it is difficult to obtain citizenship if they are an illegal immigrant. But they should not be in the country in the first place.
I don't think people are against immigration. They are against *ILLEGAL* immigration. The 'illegal' part is the distinction people often overlook. This bias is immediately evident in the title of this topic 'Arizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law'; making it sound like the law is against immigration. The omission of the word 'illegal' completely turns the idea around.
The Constitution has become irrelevant(unfortunately). People will conditionally invoke the Constitution only when it suits their ends. Ultimately it all boils down to politics. Politicians will pander to the demographic that gets them the most votes. Or spin issues to appeal to the masses. Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration?
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
Seconded (although in a moderated tone of voice).
I read through that entire freakin' bill. At no point in the bill does it allow for racial profiling of any sort. The officers are required to have probable cause before asking for documentation confirming that they are allowed to be here. What is wrong with this?
Probable cause is not simply intuition on the officer's part. He can't just look at you and go, "Hmmm he's not white, lemme check his documents." He needs to actually be able to justify it or he can lose his job or be sued.
On May 14 2010 14:05 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Quite a political hot topic on a gaming site.
My mother legally immigrated to the US and later went on to obtain citizenship. I, by extension, also became a citizen. It isn't as difficult to obtain citizenship as some people make it sound. However, it is difficult to obtain citizenship if they are an illegal immigrant. But they should not be in the country in the first place.
I don't think people are against immigration. They are against *ILLEGAL* immigration. The 'illegal' part is the distinction people often overlook. This bias is immediately evident in the title of this topic 'Arizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law'; making it sound like the law is against immigration. The omission of the word 'illegal' completely turns the idea around.
The Constitution has become irrelevant(unfortunately). People will conditionally invoke the Constitution only when it suits their ends. Ultimately it all boils down to politics. Politicians will pander to the demographic that gets them the most votes. Or spin issues to appeal to the masses. Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration?
Yea, definitely agree, as you pointed out, the title of this thread is a clear example.
Most people here seem to have flat out incorrect information about this bill. Read it yourself and see what it says because most of the people posting in this thread are grossly misinformed.
On May 26 2010 17:06 SpicyCrab wrote: Most people here seem to have flat out incorrect information about this bill. Read it yourself and see what it says because most of the people posting in this thread are grossly misinformed.
Wait are you telling me comedy shows aren't the final say on whether something is good or bad? whoa
On May 26 2010 17:06 SpicyCrab wrote: Most people here seem to have flat out incorrect information about this bill. Read it yourself and see what it says because most of the people posting in this thread are grossly misinformed.
Wait are you telling me comedy shows aren't the final say on whether something is good or bad? whoa
Institutionalized problems don't need to be written into bills, the only thing that's needed is discretion.
Also, sheriffs seem to be a pretty good judge and most across the country, in places where there are far more illegal immigrants than in AZ, think it's bad. Your economy is going to suffer, your police force is going to suffer and crime is going to flourish.
Politicians are using it for cheap political points, when it's simply bad policy. Xenophobia is stopping people from seeing that until it's too late.
On May 12 2010 10:10 Molybdenum wrote: (didn't watch the vid) Not from AZ, I'm from Ohio, and we have a fair bit of illegals here. Actually, a few years back (3-4) a drunk illegal immigrant and his buddy (maybe legal, at least one was not), crashed their car into my car parked on the street. They were both hammered, and tried to run away from the scene. Police later found them, maybe they were deported, but the insurance company paid for the car (Kelly Blue Book value). Illegals are really just a money sink on society. They receive our benefits, but do not pay taxes.
There's clearly a problem of illegal immigration (especially in AZ), and this is one way to try to stop it. Really, this law doesn't bother me. Sure, if you look illegal, you get stopped and asked to see ID. If you're legal, show them the ID, you're on your way in less than 30 seconds. It's a simple way to try to cut down on illegal immigration, that's all it is. Really, I think they just wanted to get the ball rolling. Get people discussing, get them coming up with better solutions.
I don't understand why people are so upset, sure, they're profiling, but just show them some ID if you're legal and you move on. It happens at airports too. Until there is a better solution, this one seems "good enough" and will get people talking about it, which may have been the intent of lawmakers.
Edit: Awesome, got one person who agrees.
I live in Columbus and I do have to say the place is completely full of Somalians. Most of the ones I know are legal at least in the sense of having a green card, but I know that many aren't.
To me this is pretty much the issue with this law. Racism affects what happens *when* you show your ID - this guy was basically threatened with deportation because he "looked Mexican", and so his ID was not "believable".
One of the defenses I heard with the Arizona “papers, please” law is the time-tested excuse “people who aren’t breaking the law have nothing to fear.” Well clearly, that was the disingenuous reasoning of the privileged, consciously or unconsciously. For people who are or look Mexican (or from another targeted group, depending on the times), if you come to the attention of the police, then whatever “proof” you have of citizenship, permanent residency, tourism etc may not be believed.
The possibility of this kind of error by federal law enforcement officers trained in immigration law is why so many civil rights activists are concerned with Arizona’s new immigration law, which would require local police, untrained in immigration laws, to take action based on judgments about “suspicious” immigration status.
Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
On May 29 2010 00:05 Djzapz wrote: Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
Ah, neo-cons, you guys need to learn life.
It doesn't only apply to a certain race though.
Seeing as it's a watered down federal law I find it hard to believe that it goes against the constitution. I have never seen a law blown so out of proportion as it has been in this case.
Arizona needs to forget about this one right now until they can come up with an alternative. Los Angeles is no longer conducting business with the state of Arizona until they get this thing in order, that has to be hurting them big time
On May 14 2010 14:05 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Quite a political hot topic on a gaming site.
My mother legally immigrated to the US and later went on to obtain citizenship. I, by extension, also became a citizen. It isn't as difficult to obtain citizenship as some people make it sound. However, it is difficult to obtain citizenship if they are an illegal immigrant. But they should not be in the country in the first place.
I don't think people are against immigration. They are against *ILLEGAL* immigration. The 'illegal' part is the distinction people often overlook. This bias is immediately evident in the title of this topic 'Arizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law'; making it sound like the law is against immigration. The omission of the word 'illegal' completely turns the idea around.
The Constitution has become irrelevant(unfortunately). People will conditionally invoke the Constitution only when it suits their ends. Ultimately it all boils down to politics. Politicians will pander to the demographic that gets them the most votes. Or spin issues to appeal to the masses. Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration?
I'm going to have to second this, especially the last part. Living in AZ, not much has changed. This bill was purely political, as much of the actions that the police can take were already available to them prior to this bill. This law will do nothing but win voters locally and make AZ look racist.
For long term practical purposes, there was no purpose to this bill. It will not solve the illegal immigration problem and it made AZ look very bad at the national level. I'm sure the senator that suggested it will be re-elected because he pushed for this, but honestly, that's all he was aiming for.
On May 29 2010 00:05 Djzapz wrote: Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
Ah, neo-cons, you guys need to learn life.
It doesn't only apply to a certain race though.
Seeing as it's a watered down federal law I find it hard to believe that it goes against the constitution. I have never seen a law blown so out of proportion as it has been in this case.
It's the application of the law. That includes institutional problems and the fact that people don't worry about federal law enforcement on an every day basis. Federal agents are not only better trained on issues of immigration, but they're also only seen when the situation is significant.
I'm trying to think of a situation to describe it, and this is the best I can come up with so bear with me. In highschool, you can either get punished by teachers or administrators. The school has the right to search your locker at any time, but obviously you think it's unfair if they do. Kids get in trouble with teachers all the time for minor things like not doing homework or sleeping in class, but you'll only be punished relative to that event, which means the reprimand is minor. When administrators get called in, it's because of a serious infraction in which case they're far more likely to search your locker. In this case, teachers pulling all the stops, even for minor violations. Then throw in an institutionalized problem where the teachers historically single out non-white kids as trouble makers.
The supreme court has ruled repeatedly (including a 9-0 decision in Muehler v. Mena) that officers engaged in lawful contact do not need reasonable suspicion to question a person about immigration status. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html
In Mena, officers were conducting a search of a house for drugs. During that lawful contact, officers questioned Mena about her immigration status. On appeal, Mena argued that such questioning violated her 4th Amendment rights. The court of appeals agreed with Mena. The supreme court however ruled 9-0 that the questioning did not violate her rights because the officers did not need reasonable suspicion and the questioning did not constitute a discrete event.
Basically, the decision says that if you are walking down the street the cops can not stop and ask your immigration status because that would constitute a seizure under the 4th Amendment. But, if you are already engaged in lawful contact with the police, they can question you about anything they want unless the questioning extends the duration of the original detention.
On May 29 2010 00:05 Djzapz wrote: Meh, that garbage won't hold because it goes against the constitution. At least I like to think so. It's a terrible "solution". When you start to make law that only apply to a certain "race", you know you fail.
Ah, neo-cons, you guys need to learn life.
It doesn't only apply to a certain race though.
Seeing as it's a watered down federal law I find it hard to believe that it goes against the constitution. I have never seen a law blown so out of proportion as it has been in this case.
It's the application of the law. That includes institutional problems and the fact that people don't worry about federal law enforcement on an every day basis. Federal agents are not only better trained on issues of immigration, but they're also only seen when the situation is significant.
I'm trying to think of a situation to describe it, and this is the best I can come up with so bear with me. In highschool, you can either get punished by teachers or administrators. The school has the right to search your locker at any time, but obviously you think it's unfair if they do. Kids get in trouble with teachers all the time for minor things like not doing homework or sleeping in class, but you'll only be punished relative to that event, which means the reprimand is minor. When administrators get called in, it's because of a serious infraction in which case they're far more likely to search your locker. In this case, teachers pulling all the stops, even for minor violations. Then throw in an institutionalized problem where the teachers historically single out non-white kids as trouble makers.
This works on the base assumption that Federal agents are actually the "administrators" of the regular police department.
This is simply not the case.
It is not like on TV where FBI swoops in and takes jurisdiction on anything they want. They just work on things that generally cross state lines. Baring that the local police department will retain jurisdiction no matter the seriousness of the event unless it's a government building/property that the event occurred on.
Most police officers are trained rather extensively on immigration, at least I was when I went through my academy because I mean...being in a southern state means you HAVE to deal with things like that. It's just the fact of the matter.
The only reason you see FBI or the DEA having the "major" events is because those are the ones most prone to jumping state lines and those you'll hear about on the news. Hell San Antonio ended up catching someone that was transporting over 2500 lbs of Marijuana... that's a lot of weed and from what I know SA retained the lead on that case.
From the perspective of students, in violation or not, that separation is irrelevant; the threat to them just increased dramatically.
As someone who was going to enter enforcement, do you believe the Law (big L law, not just this specific law) is applied equally? I suppose we'd really need someone that has worked in it to comment.
Why does everyone get worked up over Arizona enforcing a federal law that they won't enforce?
Hell, I've seen groups on TV saying that some Mexicans think it is theirs anyways. I say we give it to them and tell them to pay back our massive debt they helped us rack up.
This country is going to end up looking like Greece, and I hope I have the money to move somewhere else before that happens.
The question really isn't about the law. It's already a federal law. The question is whether local law enforcement can enforce a federal law. My thinking is "duh". Asking someone if they are an illegal immigrant is the same as if being asked if a cop asked you "do you smoke marijuana"...you don't have to answer and they cannot take the unanswered question as a sign that you do. In fact, I really doubt this law will have anything but a minor effect on illegal immigration the united states. In the end, I see the supreme court upholding the law since nothing in the law itself violates the already present federal law.
I think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder)
On July 16 2010 19:26 darmousseh wrote: The question really isn't about the law. It's already a federal law. The question is whether local law enforcement can enforce a federal law. My thinking is "duh". Asking someone if they are an illegal immigrant is the same as if being asked if a cop asked you "do you smoke marijuana"...you don't have to answer and they cannot take the unanswered question as a sign that you do. In fact, I really doubt this law will have anything but a minor effect on illegal immigration the united states. In the end, I see the supreme court upholding the law since nothing in the law itself violates the already present federal law.
I think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder)
Moving to America and working = breaking in and stealing stuff? I don't buy it.
Edit: I think a more fair analogy would be breaking in, doing your dishes, mowing your lawn, and then grabbing a bite to eat out of your fridge.
On July 16 2010 19:26 darmousseh wrote: The question really isn't about the law. It's already a federal law. The question is whether local law enforcement can enforce a federal law. My thinking is "duh". Asking someone if they are an illegal immigrant is the same as if being asked if a cop asked you "do you smoke marijuana"...you don't have to answer and they cannot take the unanswered question as a sign that you do. In fact, I really doubt this law will have anything but a minor effect on illegal immigration the united states. In the end, I see the supreme court upholding the law since nothing in the law itself violates the already present federal law.
I think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder)
Moving to America and working = breaking in and stealing stuff? I don't buy it.
Edit: I think a more fair analogy would be breaking in, doing your dishes, mowing your lawn, and then grabbing a bite to eat out of your fridge.
How would you describe the massive mexican drug cartel which is currently operating in Arizona shooting cops?
On July 16 2010 19:26 darmousseh wrote: The question really isn't about the law. It's already a federal law. The question is whether local law enforcement can enforce a federal law. My thinking is "duh". Asking someone if they are an illegal immigrant is the same as if being asked if a cop asked you "do you smoke marijuana"...you don't have to answer and they cannot take the unanswered question as a sign that you do. In fact, I really doubt this law will have anything but a minor effect on illegal immigration the united states. In the end, I see the supreme court upholding the law since nothing in the law itself violates the already present federal law.
I think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder)
Moving to America and working = breaking in and stealing stuff? I don't buy it.
Edit: I think a more fair analogy would be breaking in, doing your dishes, mowing your lawn, and then grabbing a bite to eat out of your fridge.
How would you describe the massive mexican drug cartel which is currently operating in Arizona shooting cops?
On July 16 2010 19:26 darmousseh wrote: The question really isn't about the law. It's already a federal law. The question is whether local law enforcement can enforce a federal law. My thinking is "duh". Asking someone if they are an illegal immigrant is the same as if being asked if a cop asked you "do you smoke marijuana"...you don't have to answer and they cannot take the unanswered question as a sign that you do. In fact, I really doubt this law will have anything but a minor effect on illegal immigration the united states. In the end, I see the supreme court upholding the law since nothing in the law itself violates the already present federal law.
I think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder)
Moving to America and working = breaking in and stealing stuff? I don't buy it.
Edit: I think a more fair analogy would be breaking in, doing your dishes, mowing your lawn, and then grabbing a bite to eat out of your fridge.
How would you describe the massive mexican drug cartel which is currently operating in Arizona shooting cops?
That's another issue entirely, and I wonder if that would be a problem if not for our own war on drugs?
Hey if it makes you all feel better that are against the bill, America has allowed Mexico to set up toll booths in Texas on american highways! (for compensation from taking their land)
Guys, forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the original Arizona law was indeed racist and allowed for cops to pull someone over just because of their phenotype (which is currently federal law anyways). But the new revised law is more along the lines... if a cop pulls someone over for something they did that was illegal, and the cop has reasonable suspicion that that person might be in the states illegally. THEN they have the right to ask for their papers. I really don't see what's wrong with that. AND I'M MEXICAN. What pisses me off even more are the Mexicans here at home that complain about this all day and go to the states to protest... you don't go into your neighbors home and tell them how to run their household... that's just common sense.
Heh, I like this law being passed and as a 2nd generation Filipino. I would agree to it simply because of how unfair it is for people who've immigrated to this country in a legal manner while you have these illegal immigrants in Latin America who come here thinking it's their home. My dad had to wait 6 years just to haul his ass over here to America while people down there think can just barge in, thinking they're US citizens just because it's near the block.
I don´t live in America, so i don´t exactly know how immigrations problems are for you, but here in the netherlands a lot of people dislike marrocans and muslims because of the trouble some of their young create in their own neighbourhoods, and i can´t say those neighbourhoods aren't bad or horrible because i live close to one.
Parties (right-winged) that want to stop this '´problem´' from spreading or increasing (stop immigration from those countries) are gaining popularity here. I have mixed thoughts about it.
However, back to the OP's topic, i do think its unacceptable to ask for legal papers because of how someone looks. exactly like OP pointed out, it does have a lot of similarities with what Nazis did.
Federal judge just obtained a partial injunction on SB1070 gutting it basically.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to "succeed on the merits" in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law.
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."
On July 19 2010 22:50 TymerA wrote: i do think its unacceptable to ask for legal papers because of how someone looks. exactly like OP pointed out, it does have a lot of similarities with what Nazis did.
Except that Nazis planned on killing people based on race, while in this instance race is a criterion for ensuring people are obeying the law, and if they don't, they are deported, not killed.
EDIT: This is complete hypocrisy as well, since the Feds ignore sanctuary cities, but get so involved with states trying to enforce existing laws.
I can understand the federal jurisdiction argument but I find it hard accepting the "racism" one.
How is this any different than what the Border patrol does every single day? Hell what they do is worse b/c at least the police would have to at least have reason to talk to them. Anyone who has been through a Border Patrol checkpoint (which there are dozens of down here) knows that they just wink at the white people and let them by and don't even stop to talk unless you're Mexican. They see a van with a Mexican driver? Well then they'll pull it over and noone cries "racism!" Weird double standard.
Overall I think the result of this bill is pretty funny. I keep hearing reports of Mexican groups as well as the government in Mexico telling "immigrants" to avoid Arizona because it is "anti-immigrant." Good! Then it looks like the law did it's job. The way they talk about avoiding Arizona they make it sound like it's hurting the state but ironically this is exactly what the law and the large majority of people want.
On July 29 2010 11:50 On_Slaught wrote: I can understand the federal jurisdiction argument but I find it hard accepting the "racism" one.
How is this any different than what the Border patrol does every single day? ... Anyone who has been through a Border Patrol checkpoint (which there are dozens of down here) knows that they just wink at the white people and let them by and don't even stop to talk unless you're Mexican.
Overall I think the result of this bill is pretty funny. I keep hearing reports of Mexican groups as well as the government in Mexico telling "immigrants" to avoid Arizona because it is "anti-immigrant." Good! Then it looks like the law did it's job.
And you fail to see how racism plays into this at all?
My point is you don't see them shutting down BP checkpoints nor do you have the ACLU and Pro-Immigrant groups protesting at the BP HQ.
Apparently racism is ok as long as the right people are doing it.
In return Mexico received US $18,250,000[43] ($457,373,077 today)—less than half the amount the U.S. had attempted to offer Mexico for the land before the opening of hostilities[44]—and the U.S. agreed to assume $3.25-million ($81,450,000 today) in debts that the Mexican government owed to U.S. citizens
If Mexico wants Arizona back they can have it, but we'll take our money back thank you very much.
This is such a sensitive topic. I don't like the law because it's stupid, theres better ways to stop or hinder illegal immigration and this will do nothing to that effect. I do understand how the economy is screwed by these illegals tho. I work with a woman who admitted her grandfather and dad both came here, got social security and moved back to Mexico and she sends them the social security checks. Wtf?! I ratted her out to the authorities, can you say "Jail time!"? Those social security checks are being robbed and her family is living the high life in some Mexican village with U.S. money. Or at least, they were.... Lol.
On July 29 2010 14:47 ckw wrote: This is such a sensitive topic. I don't like the law because it's stupid, theres better ways to stop or hinder illegal immigration and this will do nothing to that effect. I do understand how the economy is screwed by these illegals tho. I work with a woman who admitted her grandfather and dad both came here, got social security and moved back to Mexico and she sends them the social security checks. Wtf?! I ratted her out to the authorities, can you say "Jail time!"? Those social security checks are being robbed and her family is living the high life in some Mexican village with U.S. money. Or at least, they were.... Lol.
See I completely support what you did but it's important to point out it's completely different =P
Quote I got through another forum. My apologies if this was posted before.
You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
On July 29 2010 14:47 ckw wrote: This is such a sensitive topic. I don't like the law because it's stupid, theres better ways to stop or hinder illegal immigration and this will do nothing to that effect. I do understand how the economy is screwed by these illegals tho. I work with a woman who admitted her grandfather and dad both came here, got social security and moved back to Mexico and she sends them the social security checks. Wtf?! I ratted her out to the authorities, can you say "Jail time!"? Those social security checks are being robbed and her family is living the high life in some Mexican village with U.S. money. Or at least, they were.... Lol.
what you did was lawful but unethical... I don't know if I would be able to rat someone out like that, even if I disliked her.
Sigh.. cases like these give the hard working mexican's a bad name.
On July 17 2010 11:42 Chupacabra(UCSD) wrote: Guys, forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the original Arizona law was indeed racist and allowed for cops to pull someone over just because of their phenotype (which is currently federal law anyways). But the new revised law is more along the lines... if a cop pulls someone over for something they did that was illegal, and the cop has reasonable suspicion that that person might be in the states illegally. THEN they have the right to ask for their papers. I really don't see what's wrong with that. AND I'M MEXICAN. What pisses me off even more are the Mexicans here at home that complain about this all day and go to the states to protest... you don't go into your neighbors home and tell them how to run their household... that's just common sense.
The law is the same as the day it was annouced. However they changed part of the law that wasn't specific enough about what a "legal contract" was. People thought it meant if an illegal reported a crime they could be arrested and deported. They made it more clear that it would only be if the person is detained for an illegal activity.
On August 01 2010 13:44 wxwx wrote:what you did was lawful but unethical... I don't know if I would be able to rat someone out like that, even if I disliked her.
It's unethical to inform the authorities about thievery? lol
On August 01 2010 13:13 Headlines wrote: Quote I got through another forum. My apologies if this was posted before.
You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
1) What the fuck? Really? You think they get paid $15 an hour? 2) How's that relevant to this issue at hand? My skin color should not be a reason for someone to pull me over and ask my immigration paper. And racist white people happens to ignore the fact that there are indeed Europeans that are considered illegal immigrants, such as from Ireland or what not.
Personally, I'm not sure how much the illegal immigrant gets paid, but I would not have posted the quote if I thought it was irrelevant to the topic. The quote doesn't seem too far off from what really happens in the blue job field. Perhaps this is one of the many issues as to why Arizona would enact an anti-immigration act?
There was a time in U.S. history when European immigrants were frowned upon (read up on the 1880's - 1920's). Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, now it's the Mexicans.
You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
That's kind of wrong, illegals have to pay any indirect tax and land tax just as much. The issue with under the table income is not something exclusive nor mutual to illegal immigrant employment.
Many many illegals use fake SSNs to pay income taxes and get no tax returns, basically paying more than citizens even; others pay income taxes through an ITIN. And also, legal citizens can work under the table just as much too, so... even if you wanna say income taxes are a big deal, it's not because of illegal immigration, it's because the employer chose not to require w-4's
Illegal immigrants are just the scapegoats of the moment... especially when the government could make them all legal by tomorrow and have all those tax issues solved.
I completly agree with this law If i was an illegal Alien in some other country, i would not be getting food stamps and free medical attention. I would be in jail and probably deported. I am sick of not being able to find a Job in Az, because of such high % of Illegals. As a teen, it is almost impossible to get a job right now
On August 01 2010 13:13 Headlines wrote: Quote I got through another forum. My apologies if this was posted before.
You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
That's kind of wrong, illegals have to pay any indirect tax and land tax just as much. The issue with under the table income is not something exclusive nor mutual to illegal immigrant employment.
Many many illegals use fake SSNs to pay income taxes and get no tax returns, basically paying more than citizens even; others pay income taxes through an ITIN. And also, legal citizens can work under the table just as much too, so... even if you wanna say income taxes are a big deal, it's not because of illegal immigration, it's because the employer chose not to require w-4's
Illegal immigrants are just the scapegoats of the moment... especially when the government could make them all legal by tomorrow and have all those tax issues solved.
They are paying for the new salad bar, tennis courts, tv rooms etc at club fed before they are deported. They are getting a return for all the efforts of crossing illegally and working. This just speeds up the process of figuring out where they are from so they can go back home sooner and maybe decide to go through the process like my family had to do to become legal aliens.
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy.
[Yahoo News reporter Liz Goodwin will be answering your questions about the Supreme Court's immigration ruling today at 4 p.m. ET on Facebook.]
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law or most of the law should have been upheld.
In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the federal government's "power to determine immigration policy is well settled." But he also showed concern for what he described as Arizona's outsize burden in dealing with illegal immigration, seeming to sympathize with the state's decision to butt in on immigration enforcement. "Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration," he wrote. "Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year." But, ultimately, the justices found that Arizona cannot mete out its own state punishments for federal immigration crimes.
"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Kennedy wrote in the opinion's conclusion.
The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they found an illegal immigrant. The federal government would then decide if they wanted to try to deport the suspect, or let him or her go. Kennedy did not rule out that these checks may be implemented in an illegal way, which means more lawsuits may be forthcoming.
Nevertheless, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cast the decision as a "victory" for the state. "I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable," she said in a statement, adding that officers have been trained not to racially profile in their stops.
Erika Andiola, an activist and undocumented immigrant in Arizona, said that the Latino community will not be happy with the decision, as the immigration checks portion of the law was most unpopular with them. "It's another message to the Latino community that if you look brown you're a perfect target for the police," she said.
The Obama administration sued to block Arizona's law, called SB1070, shortly after it passed two years ago, saying it interfered with federal authority over immigration. The law made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or fail to carry proper immigration papers. It also requires police officers to check immigration status and make warrantless arrests for immigration crimes in some cases. A federal judge prevented those aspects of the law from going into effect, but the law became a lightning rod around the country, sparking boycotts and counterboycotts and opening up a debate about the nation's illegal immigrant population.
In oral arguments in April, many of the justices seemed deeply skeptical of the government's argument that local police officers would interfere with federal authority over immigration law if they began asking people about their immigration status during stops. Though much of the debate around the law has focused on "racial profiling"—whether Hispanic people would be stopped and questioned by police based on their ethnicity—the government did not even mention those words in its case against the law, instead focusing on the federal government's supremacy in immigration matters. Justices repeatedly criticized the government's argument against immigration checks. Even Sotomayor, part of the court's liberal wing, said she was "terribly confused" by the government's argument against the checks.
The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they found an illegal immigrant. The federal government would then decide if they wanted to try to deport the suspect, or let him or her go. Kennedy did not rule out that these checks may be implemented in an illegal way, which means more lawsuits may be forthcoming.
Interesting.. because the next major piece of news was this:
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.
“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.
But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.
Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.
On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.
The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.
On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.
There are still several suits against the law, so it isn't necessarily here to stay. The ACLU for one is sueing, and probably has better grounds for its suit than the injunction that was making its way through the court system.
the amount of illegal immagrants in the united states is staggering and is destructive, but this is not the way to go about fixing the problem.
on the other hand, tolerance goes both ways. maybe put up with ignorant idiots so things dont get even worse than they already are. more specifically; if you are here legally dont get yourself in trouble being disresptful with people who sought a position of power for respect or to treat those they percieve below them with contempt - with contempt.
Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
Speaking of oversimplification, I like how the OP just uses a snippet of history to set the tone for his post. The Mexican War was rather shit of us but the Republic of Texas openly rebelled against Mexico and asked to join the United States. Mexico disputed the territorial lines and attacked American soldiers inside of Texas. A war was had, horrible and short, and when the shots ended the US paid Mexico 18 million for Alta California and New Mexico and agreed to cessation of hostilities.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
Illegal immigrants don't contribute anywhere near enough into the societies in which they live to make up for their consumption of public services.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
Man we're such fucked up human beings. It's like we see illegal immigrants as disgusting filth. They came because there are no jobs in their country or wanted a better life for their kids. Because they couldn't come here legally due to the fact they have no money to begin with, all we're saying is to get them the fuck out. This law is a fucking joke. It's putting the burden of proof on the accused. Putting everything aside, that's just fucked up. Instead of trying to help these people get legalized and MAKE them pay the taxes and be citizens so that we can fix this shit of an economy, we're trying to witch hunt everyone that looks illegal. Go America! Land of the free and home of the brave amirite?
It is not like a majority of illegal immigrants are coming to the United States from war torn countries and they are fleeing for their very lives, they are coming from countries that they could most likely make a comfortable living but think coming to the United States will improve their lot in life.
I see a big difference in that. If they want to come into the United States, they should do it legally. That is the crux of the matter, people doing something --> illegal <-- and that is causing problems.
On June 26 2012 04:53 Probe1 wrote: Speaking of oversimplification, I like how the OP just uses a snippet of history to set the tone for his post. The Mexican War was rather shit of us but the Republic of Texas openly rebelled against Mexico and asked to join the United States. Mexico disputed the territorial lines and attacked American soldiers inside of Texas. A war was had, horrible and short, and when the shots ended the US paid Mexico 18 million for Alta California and New Mexico and agreed to cessation of hostilities.
The US-Mexico war was nothing more than an opportunist move by an aggressive expansionist country against an opponent going through a period of serious internal turmoil. Though I'm sure it is taught in America as the "Liberation of Texas" or "Operation California Freedom"... something like that, so I understand your point of view.
On June 26 2012 04:53 Probe1 wrote: Speaking of oversimplification, I like how the OP just uses a snippet of history to set the tone for his post. The Mexican War was rather shit of us but the Republic of Texas openly rebelled against Mexico and asked to join the United States. Mexico disputed the territorial lines and attacked American soldiers inside of Texas. A war was had, horrible and short, and when the shots ended the US paid Mexico 18 million for Alta California and New Mexico and agreed to cessation of hostilities.
The US-Mexico war was nothing more than an opportunist move by an aggressive expansionist country against an opponent going through a period of serious internal turmoil. Though I'm sure it is taught in America as the "Liberation of Texas" or "Operation California Freedom"... something like that, so I understand your point of view.
I think Probe1 describes it a bit more reasonably and detailed than you describe it, so I'm inclined to go with his version more so than yours, regardless of where I'm from.
On June 26 2012 07:14 valium wrote: It is not like a majority of illegal immigrants are coming to the United States from war torn countries and they are fleeing for their very lives, they are coming from countries that they could most likely make a comfortable living but think coming to the United States will improve their lot in life.
I see a big difference in that. If they want to come into the United States, they should do it legally. That is the crux of the matter, people doing something --> illegal <-- and that is causing problems.
If you are in Mexico and have no family or business ties to the U.S. it is simply not possible to immigrate legally. You might as well say, "If people don't like being poor, they should just win the lottery in their home country instead of immigrating to the U.S." since that is much more feasible and therefore practical advice.
First off, why is this title "Anti Immigration Law" and not "Anti-Illegal Immigration Law"?
On June 26 2012 06:23 EienShinwa wrote: Man we're such fucked up human beings. It's like we see illegal immigrants as disgusting filth. They came because there are no jobs in their country or wanted a better life for their kids. Because they couldn't come here legally due to the fact they have no money to begin with, all we're saying is to get them the fuck out. This law is a fucking joke. It's putting the burden of proof on the accused. Putting everything aside, that's just fucked up. Instead of trying to help these people get legalized and MAKE them pay the taxes and be citizens so that we can fix this shit of an economy, we're trying to witch hunt everyone that looks illegal. Go America! Land of the free and home of the brave amirite?
Should we have open borders? Everyone that comes in can be a citizen? You can't have open borders when you have welfare programs.
We take in more people who emigrate from their countries than any where else. We aren't even that bad when it comes to us finding illegal immigrants. Places like Mexico throw them in jail for 5 years. Most of this Arizona law is just a straight copy from the Federal law, which is the reason most of it got shot down. The Federal law even says that you have to "have your papers."
I would like immigration to be reformed to have fast paths to citizenship for people who come here to study or join the military. And let in even more people each year.
The profiling part is wrong, but personally I'm all down for getting rid of illegal immigrants. I think we need our own wall of America between us and Mexico with machine guns posted on it. Sorry, but when the first act you make in our country is to break our laws, I don't believe you have the same rights as everyone else. If you're gonna come here, come legally.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
Why do a lot of people automatically assume that illegal immigrants only come from Mexico or any other South American or Central American countries? Why do people automatically assume that all illegal immigrants will be doing minimum wage jobs? Why do people assume that illegals have nothing to offer for this country, and instead of making them citizens and having them contribute to the supposed "tax burden," we deport them out of the country as if they are filth and trash?
Illegal immigrants, like any immigrant to the United States, came here for a better life, escaping poverty, lack of opportunity, oppression, war, prejudice, racism, violence, etc. And many cannot afford to even go through the legal methods, or there may not even be ways to go through legal methods for them. Does that mean that they should be condemned to being forever stuck in a hopeless situation and denied a better life?
I've had friends who were illegal immigrants at one point in there lives or another, still are, or maybe there parents were/are. I've heard stories of those who came to the country through less than legal means talk of hardships of not being able to afford healthcare because of illegal immigration, even when they have desperately needed it. Some have been unable to afford college because of their immigration status--students who have worked their asses off during High School, getting 4.5+GPAs and accepted into some of the biggest, most prestigious institutions in the world. And mind you, they were brought here at a young age, where moving was beyond their control and political concepts, let alone the act of walking, were beyond them. Many of my friends have become successful, going to high level universities, and have dreams of becoming something in the world and making a mark. Although not "American" citizenship-wise, they are patriotic and consider themselves as American as any natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States of America.
So please, before making any sweeping, ignorant, generalizations about any and all illegal immigrants in the USA, think about the fact that they are human as you and I, and as human, they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as you expected to be treated with. It is terrible that I have to go through this thread and see posters dehumanize illegal immigrants by stereotyping them. I expected better out of Teamliquid. Guess I expected too much.
As to the law itself, I find it ridiculous. How the heck is the "police are allowed to ask for your immigration papers" without committing racism and stereotyping. Unless they enact a policy where they ask it from anyone they stop, or have it set so that you can only ask for papers when first enforcing another law (speeding, etc), I find it ridiculous. And let's be real, if they stop a white guy on the streets, what are the chances that, even if he is a citizen, he is going to be carrying: 1) proof of citizenship. 2) arrest him if he doesn't.
Now think about what will happen if it was a guy who looks Hispanic or Mexican, who's family has been living in the United States for many generations. what are the chances that he will get arrested? And be wrongly accused of being illegal while perhaps a illegal, i dunno, Canadian guy, walks right on by without attracting suspicion.
This law is, in my opinion, too hard to enforce justly and has a real danger of sparking racial tensions.
And sorry for the epic long post, I get really emotional about this kind of stuff because it just disgusts me to see people just talk about other human beings in such a manner.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
How quickly we give up our dream the second we have power. It's a shame, really.
That said, this ruling is a huge win. SCOTUS smacked down AZ legislature something hard. The language with regards to 2b essentially neuters it. the Court was clearly hinting that if the "show your papers" law led to any semblance of profiling, the situation would amount to a constitutional violation of rights.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
Yeah, I have dreams and aspirations too. My dream is that I will have a world of only hot chinese girls and rich white people. And I have aspirations to go on a killing spree and burn entire cities down and cause mayhem and havoc!
Ok that is SLIGHTLY extreme...but having dreams and aspirations doesn't change that they broke our laws. I don't care what there dreams and aspirations are, I'm sorry. When you come to our country, respect our laws.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
Yeah, I have dreams and aspirations too. My dream is that I will have a world of only hot chinese girls and rich white people. And I have aspirations to go on a killing spree and burn entire cities down and cause mayhem and havoc!
Ok that is SLIGHTLY extreme...but having dreams and aspirations doesn't change that they broke our laws. I don't care what there dreams and aspirations are, I'm sorry. When you come to our country, respect our laws.
I mean...did you read the rest of the tl;dr?
I was going to come up with an argument, then I realized how pointless it will be to argue with someone who thinks so simply and ignores how complicated of an issue illegal immigration is with a simple statement as "respect our laws."
Edit: But I mean, come on, what are you going to do then? Go deport every single illegal immigrant in the United States and then send them back to a living hell after they have established a comfortable life here? Or at least one better than the one they left?
Just because it is law doesn't make it ethically or morally right. And illegal immigration is not just a legal issue. It is a moral and ethical issue as well.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
Thank you for common sense. All the "racial profiling" BS is getting real old.
Why should Arizona be condemned for UPHOLDING THE LAW THAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE? I do not have any problem with people wanting to come to the states LEGALLY and taking advantage of the great opportunities available. I don't have a problem with those that wish to become citizens(LEGALLY). I do not think that the legal avenues by which all of this can become possible are perfect but if you really want to stay then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
I don't always enjoy having a chuck of my income taken out every month for taxes...But I do it because it's a pay to play system. I don't mind it because I know it supports the infrastructure of the nation(or at least I wish it would). What I refuse to accept is that there are people that get all the advantages given to me as a citizen of the United States yet DO NOT pay taxes.
I say, if you're already here illegally but are willing to seek citizenship then let them stay and WORK TO EARN IT. They can pay taxes like the rest of us and be law abiding citizens like us. If not? Deport them. period
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
Why do a lot of people automatically assume that illegal immigrants only come from Mexico or any other South American or Central American countries? Why do people automatically assume that all illegal immigrants will be doing minimum wage jobs? Why do people assume that illegals have nothing to offer for this country, and instead of making them citizens and having them contribute to the supposed "tax burden," we deport them out of the country as if they are filth and trash?
People automatically assume those things because they are largely true. Most illegal immigrants come from Mexico (over half!) and most do not have job skills which means they will be working for minimum wage (or less if they are taken advantage of!).
There's a limit to how many poor and unskilled people the US economy can absorb at a time. There's a limit to how many students the taxpayers can subsidize. So, it is reasonable that we put enforceable limits on how many people can come in each year.
On June 26 2012 07:14 valium wrote: It is not like a majority of illegal immigrants are coming to the United States from war torn countries and they are fleeing for their very lives, they are coming from countries that they could most likely make a comfortable living but think coming to the United States will improve their lot in life.
I see a big difference in that. If they want to come into the United States, they should do it legally. That is the crux of the matter, people doing something --> illegal <-- and that is causing problems.
If you are in Mexico and have no family or business ties to the U.S. it is simply not possible to immigrate legally. You might as well say, "If people don't like being poor, they should just win the lottery in their home country instead of immigrating to the U.S." since that is much more feasible and therefore practical advice.
So they should break the law, cause problems for everyone (themselves included) because they want more money? If it is so bad that they need to flood into a different country why not try to improve their own?
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
Yeah, I have dreams and aspirations too. My dream is that I will have a world of only hot chinese girls and rich white people. And I have aspirations to go on a killing spree and burn entire cities down and cause mayhem and havoc!
Ok that is SLIGHTLY extreme...but having dreams and aspirations doesn't change that they broke our laws. I don't care what there dreams and aspirations are, I'm sorry. When you come to our country, respect our laws.
I mean...did you read the rest of the tl;dr?
I was going to come up with an argument, then I realized how pointless it will be to argue with someone who thinks so simply and ignores how complicated of an issue illegal immigration is with a simple statement as "respect our laws."
Edit: But I mean, come on, what are you going to do then? Go deport every single illegal immigrant in the United States and then send them back to a living hell after they have established a comfortable life here? Or at least one better than the one they left?
Just because it is law doesn't make it ethically or morally right. And illegal immigration is not just a legal issue. It is a moral and ethical issue as well.
Morals and ethics are semi irrelevant. Not everyone has the same morals and ethics. And in my opinion, government shouldn't be regulating morals/ethics. Regardless, we are all required to follow the same laws. So morals and ethics aside, we need to follow the laws of our government if we decide to live here, which is to come here legally.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
Yeah, I have dreams and aspirations too. My dream is that I will have a world of only hot chinese girls and rich white people. And I have aspirations to go on a killing spree and burn entire cities down and cause mayhem and havoc!
Ok that is SLIGHTLY extreme...but having dreams and aspirations doesn't change that they broke our laws. I don't care what there dreams and aspirations are, I'm sorry. When you come to our country, respect our laws.
I mean...did you read the rest of the tl;dr?
I was going to come up with an argument, then I realized how pointless it will be to argue with someone who thinks so simply and ignores how complicated of an issue illegal immigration is with a simple statement as "respect our laws."
Edit: But I mean, come on, what are you going to do then? Go deport every single illegal immigrant in the United States and then send them back to a living hell after they have established a comfortable life here? Or at least one better than the one they left?
Just because it is law doesn't make it ethically or morally right. And illegal immigration is not just a legal issue. It is a moral and ethical issue as well.
So, every illegal immigrant is escaping a 'living hell' now? And none are abused once in the US because of their illegal status?
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
Yeah, I have dreams and aspirations too. My dream is that I will have a world of only hot chinese girls and rich white people. And I have aspirations to go on a killing spree and burn entire cities down and cause mayhem and havoc!
Ok that is SLIGHTLY extreme...but having dreams and aspirations doesn't change that they broke our laws. I don't care what there dreams and aspirations are, I'm sorry. When you come to our country, respect our laws.
I mean...did you read the rest of the tl;dr?
I was going to come up with an argument, then I realized how pointless it will be to argue with someone who thinks so simply and ignores how complicated of an issue illegal immigration is with a simple statement as "respect our laws."
Edit: But I mean, come on, what are you going to do then? Go deport every single illegal immigrant in the United States and then send them back to a living hell after they have established a comfortable life here? Or at least one better than the one they left?
Just because it is law doesn't make it ethically or morally right. And illegal immigration is not just a legal issue. It is a moral and ethical issue as well.
I supose you favor open US borders then correct? That's the only logical assumption from your whole "laws don't matter if dreams and aspirations are at stake!"
Lol @ all the people that are saying "they need to come here legally". The fact of the matter is, unless you have some sort of business connection(I even have family who can't get here legally, family connections don't always help) or some other reason that makes you "important", you're not getting here legally, especially if you're coming from Latin America. Period. I don't think many of the posters here understand just how broken our immigration system is. Illegal immigration wouldn't be a big issue if it were actually reasonably possible to get here legally.
On June 26 2012 10:09 Josealtron wrote: Lol @ all the people that are saying "they need to come here legally". The fact of the matter is, unless you have some sort of business connection(I even have family who can't get here legally, family connections don't always help) or some other reason that makes you "important", you're not getting here legally, especially if you're coming from Latin America. Period. I don't think many of the posters here understand just how broken our immigration system is. Illegal immigration wouldn't be a big issue if it were actually reasonably possible to get here legally.
Why should it be so easy for anyone and everyone to immigrate to the US?
On June 26 2012 10:09 Josealtron wrote: Lol @ all the people that are saying "they need to come here legally". The fact of the matter is, unless you have some sort of business connection(I even have family who can't get here legally, family connections don't always help) or some other reason that makes you "important", you're not getting here legally, especially if you're coming from Latin America. Period. I don't think many of the posters here understand just how broken our immigration system is. Illegal immigration wouldn't be a big issue if it were actually reasonably possible to get here legally.
Why should it be so easy for anyone and everyone to immigrate to the US?
Why shouldn't it be? A legal immigrant from Latin America would pay all their taxes just like everyone else, could become educated and important members of society just like anyone else(though that would be far easier if college weren't so expensive in the US, but that's another issue) and will contribute to society just like any other person. And even though many of them will simply become laborers, that doesn't necessarily mean that their kids will be like that as well-there's already many cases of illegal immigrant students who did very well in school not being able to attend college, which is very sad considering the wasted potential. We don't have an overpopulation problem in the U.S., that I'm aware of-and honestly, many immigrants contribute more to society than most natural born immigrants, simply because they understand the opportunity that there is here compared to places like Mexico.
The real question is, why SHOULDN'T we allow these people in?
note: I know people are mainly referring to Mexican/Latin American immigrants so those are the main people I'm focusing on. The same applies to immigrants from other countries with similar situations, though.
I'm a little unclear on this particular piece of legislation. I was under the impression that this law is word for word the same as the federal one that the executive branch has recently refused to really enforce. Am I wrong on this point? *Genuinely wants to know.*
I wonder which kind of shitstorm Germany would face (esp. from the US) if it would think about such a law. As i personally know quite a few of "illegal" immigrants who want to work hard and succeeded with it and are now proper citizen, i am against such a law but i don't have the day-by-day experience some of you guys have.
Reducing the requirements for legal immigration is the key in my opinion. The more "legal" people the better, assuming we get our entitlement programs under control.
the "war on illegal immigrants" is just as futile as the war on drugs. you can throw all of the money and laws at it you want, but in the end, the problem will never go away and you'll just end up reducing people's rights and putting people in jail that shouldn't be
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
Why do a lot of people automatically assume that illegal immigrants only come from Mexico or any other South American or Central American countries? Why do people automatically assume that all illegal immigrants will be doing minimum wage jobs? Why do people assume that illegals have nothing to offer for this country, and instead of making them citizens and having them contribute to the supposed "tax burden," we deport them out of the country as if they are filth and trash?
Illegal immigrants, like any immigrant to the United States, came here for a better life, escaping poverty, lack of opportunity, oppression, war, prejudice, racism, violence, etc. And many cannot afford to even go through the legal methods, or there may not even be ways to go through legal methods for them. Does that mean that they should be condemned to being forever stuck in a hopeless situation and denied a better life?
I've had friends who were illegal immigrants at one point in there lives or another, still are, or maybe there parents were/are. I've heard stories of those who came to the country through less than legal means talk of hardships of not being able to afford healthcare because of illegal immigration, even when they have desperately needed it. Some have been unable to afford college because of their immigration status--students who have worked their asses off during High School, getting 4.5+GPAs and accepted into some of the biggest, most prestigious institutions in the world. And mind you, they were brought here at a young age, where moving was beyond their control and political concepts, let alone the act of walking, were beyond them. Many of my friends have become successful, going to high level universities, and have dreams of becoming something in the world and making a mark. Although not "American" citizenship-wise, they are patriotic and consider themselves as American as any natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States of America.
So please, before making any sweeping, ignorant, generalizations about any and all illegal immigrants in the USA, think about the fact that they are human as you and I, and as human, they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as you expected to be treated with. It is terrible that I have to go through this thread and see posters dehumanize illegal immigrants by stereotyping them. I expected better out of Teamliquid. Guess I expected too much.
As to the law itself, I find it ridiculous. How the heck is the "police are allowed to ask for your immigration papers" without committing racism and stereotyping. Unless they enact a policy where they ask it from anyone they stop, or have it set so that you can only ask for papers when first enforcing another law (speeding, etc), I find it ridiculous. And let's be real, if they stop a white guy on the streets, what are the chances that, even if he is a citizen, he is going to be carrying: 1) proof of citizenship. 2) arrest him if he doesn't.
Now think about what will happen if it was a guy who looks Hispanic or Mexican, who's family has been living in the United States for many generations. what are the chances that he will get arrested? And be wrongly accused of being illegal while perhaps a illegal, i dunno, Canadian guy, walks right on by without attracting suspicion.
This law is, in my opinion, too hard to enforce justly and has a real danger of sparking racial tensions.
And sorry for the epic long post, I get really emotional about this kind of stuff because it just disgusts me to see people just talk about other human beings in such a manner.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
It doesn't matter where they are from, but yes, a majority of them are from Mexico and a very large number of them don't speak the native language (US doesn't have an official language, blah, blah, blah, it's de facto). This leads to a ton of them working minimum wage and manual labor jobs. Not all sure, whatever. You can name a few exceptions to any generalization, but the reason generalizations tend to exist is because of a large amount of truth. So in short the exceptions aren't relevant because they are a vast minority.
I know we would all love to live in an idealistic world where everyone is equal, but that isn't how it is and furthermore it isn't our job to ensure that every South American gets all the rights and opportunities of a US citizen. The USA can't physically do this, we don't have the resources, and when we do try to intervene and prop up a country that failed to run itself we end up with situations like Vietnam. Know whose job it is to ensure these people's rights? Their governments. If their government sucks they should take a look at what Egypt did last year.
Don't like it don't live there then. This is not a racist law, this law is being made to protect american citizens jobs and communities. If you are going to come to america then be american. Leave the cultural bullshit at home when you go to work or whatever it is you do.
On June 26 2012 11:45 FarmI3oy wrote: Don't like it don't live there then. This is not a racist law, this law is being made to protect american citizens jobs and communities. If you are going to come to america then be american. Leave the cultural bullshit at home when you go to work or whatever it is you do.
And what is American exactly? This country is a mish mash of all different cultures, which one do you want them to pick and adopt?
On June 26 2012 11:16 1Eris1 wrote: Reducing the requirements for legal immigration is the key in my opinion. The more "legal" people the better, assuming we get our entitlement programs under control.
If conservatives ever figure this part out, then they will have far more success in their efforts to address the immigration issue. If nothing else, it's certainly help abolish the image they currently have as xenophobic racists when they want to be tough on illegal immigration.
On June 26 2012 11:45 FarmI3oy wrote: Don't like it don't live there then. This is not a racist law, this law is being made to protect american citizens jobs and communities. If you are going to come to america then be american. Leave the cultural bullshit at home when you go to work or whatever it is you do.
you are right giving cops the authority to detain and question people without any warrant, solely based on stereotypical external appearance is very american. There is a reason the supreme court unanimously crushed this, because it is unconstitutional and anti-american.
On June 26 2012 10:09 Josealtron wrote: Lol @ all the people that are saying "they need to come here legally". The fact of the matter is, unless you have some sort of business connection(I even have family who can't get here legally, family connections don't always help) or some other reason that makes you "important", you're not getting here legally, especially if you're coming from Latin America. Period. I don't think many of the posters here understand just how broken our immigration system is. Illegal immigration wouldn't be a big issue if it were actually reasonably possible to get here legally.
Why should it be so easy for anyone and everyone to immigrate to the US?
Why shouldn't it be? A legal immigrant from Latin America would pay all their taxes just like everyone else, could become educated and important members of society just like anyone else(though that would be far easier if college weren't so expensive in the US, but that's another issue) and will contribute to society just like any other person. And even though many of them will simply become laborers, that doesn't necessarily mean that their kids will be like that as well-there's already many cases of illegal immigrant students who did very well in school not being able to attend college, which is very sad considering the wasted potential. We don't have an overpopulation problem in the U.S., that I'm aware of-and honestly, many immigrants contribute more to society than most natural born immigrants, simply because they understand the opportunity that there is here compared to places like Mexico.
The real question is, why SHOULDN'T we allow these people in?
note: I know people are mainly referring to Mexican/Latin American immigrants so those are the main people I'm focusing on. The same applies to immigrants from other countries with similar situations, though.
Have you ever visited a foreign embassy? I went to the one in Ethiopia and there was lines several hundred people long, stretching around the street, and even more in the waiting room (largest waiting room I have ever seen in my life). Most of these people are willing to spend all their money just to fly over. I think you have the right mindset, but we simply cannot accept everyone.
On June 26 2012 04:53 Probe1 wrote: Speaking of oversimplification, I like how the OP just uses a snippet of history to set the tone for his post. The Mexican War was rather shit of us but the Republic of Texas openly rebelled against Mexico and asked to join the United States. Mexico disputed the territorial lines and attacked American soldiers inside of Texas. A war was had, horrible and short, and when the shots ended the US paid Mexico 18 million for Alta California and New Mexico and agreed to cessation of hostilities.
The US-Mexico war was nothing more than an opportunist move by an aggressive expansionist country against an opponent going through a period of serious internal turmoil. Though I'm sure it is taught in America as the "Liberation of Texas" or "Operation California Freedom"... something like that, so I understand your point of view.
I think Probe1 describes it a bit more reasonably and detailed than you describe it, so I'm inclined to go with his version more so than yours, regardless of where I'm from.
To be fair no one is ever wholly innocent or to blame. Most posts in this thread are dealing with absolutes. For example:
On June 26 2012 07:14 valium wrote: It is not like a majority of illegal immigrants are coming to the United States from war torn countries and they are fleeing for their very lives, they are coming from countries that they could most likely make a comfortable living but think coming to the United States will improve their lot in life.
I see a big difference in that. If they want to come into the United States, they should do it legally. That is the crux of the matter, people doing something --> illegal <-- and that is causing problems.
If you are in Mexico and have no family or business ties to the U.S. it is simply not possible to immigrate legally. You might as well say, "If people don't like being poor, they should just win the lottery in their home country instead of immigrating to the U.S." since that is much more feasible and therefore practical advice.
So they should break the law, cause problems for everyone (themselves included) because they want more money? If it is so bad that they need to flood into a different country why not try to improve their own?
Their case is never wholly about improved wages. What about Mexicans escaping the rampant gang violence that is funded by our (Americas) love for illicit American drugs? Are we to blame? Are they?
We are both to blame. The United States needs more accepting immigration laws that allows the process to take place legally. Just like drug regulation, all criminalization does is bring a larger burden onto the State by allocating tax revenue to prevention, protection and detainment.
The US needs new national policies regarding immigration and drug enforcement. The issues are entwined and one cannot be mostly solved without addressing the other.
Arizona needs to lay off the crazy pills however. There's far to many stories of "militias" and far too few of generosity or reasonable folk.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
I really think this will turn into a racial profiling thing until someone actually sues and gets to the Supreme Court. I really think the law is going to turn into an Gestapo kind of thing, that is what we are all afraid of.
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
Why do a lot of people automatically assume that illegal immigrants only come from Mexico or any other South American or Central American countries? Why do people automatically assume that all illegal immigrants will be doing minimum wage jobs? Why do people assume that illegals have nothing to offer for this country, and instead of making them citizens and having them contribute to the supposed "tax burden," we deport them out of the country as if they are filth and trash?
Illegal immigrants, like any immigrant to the United States, came here for a better life, escaping poverty, lack of opportunity, oppression, war, prejudice, racism, violence, etc. And many cannot afford to even go through the legal methods, or there may not even be ways to go through legal methods for them. Does that mean that they should be condemned to being forever stuck in a hopeless situation and denied a better life?
I've had friends who were illegal immigrants at one point in there lives or another, still are, or maybe there parents were/are. I've heard stories of those who came to the country through less than legal means talk of hardships of not being able to afford healthcare because of illegal immigration, even when they have desperately needed it. Some have been unable to afford college because of their immigration status--students who have worked their asses off during High School, getting 4.5+GPAs and accepted into some of the biggest, most prestigious institutions in the world. And mind you, they were brought here at a young age, where moving was beyond their control and political concepts, let alone the act of walking, were beyond them. Many of my friends have become successful, going to high level universities, and have dreams of becoming something in the world and making a mark. Although not "American" citizenship-wise, they are patriotic and consider themselves as American as any natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States of America.
So please, before making any sweeping, ignorant, generalizations about any and all illegal immigrants in the USA, think about the fact that they are human as you and I, and as human, they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as you expected to be treated with. It is terrible that I have to go through this thread and see posters dehumanize illegal immigrants by stereotyping them. I expected better out of Teamliquid. Guess I expected too much.
As to the law itself, I find it ridiculous. How the heck is the "police are allowed to ask for your immigration papers" without committing racism and stereotyping. Unless they enact a policy where they ask it from anyone they stop, or have it set so that you can only ask for papers when first enforcing another law (speeding, etc), I find it ridiculous. And let's be real, if they stop a white guy on the streets, what are the chances that, even if he is a citizen, he is going to be carrying: 1) proof of citizenship. 2) arrest him if he doesn't.
Now think about what will happen if it was a guy who looks Hispanic or Mexican, who's family has been living in the United States for many generations. what are the chances that he will get arrested? And be wrongly accused of being illegal while perhaps a illegal, i dunno, Canadian guy, walks right on by without attracting suspicion.
This law is, in my opinion, too hard to enforce justly and has a real danger of sparking racial tensions.
And sorry for the epic long post, I get really emotional about this kind of stuff because it just disgusts me to see people just talk about other human beings in such a manner.
tl;dr: Illegal immigrants are real people too with real dreams and real aspirations. Treat them as such.
The USA can't physically do this, we don't have the resources, and when we do try to intervene and prop up a country that failed to run itself we end up with situations like Vietnam.
On May 12 2010 09:58 ragnasaur wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ98z4__H-g http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
I really think this will turn into a racial profiling thing until someone actually sues and gets to the Supreme Court. I really think the law is going to turn into an Gestapo kind of thing, that is what we are all afraid of.
The majority opinion basically says that when it gets challenged on a case by case basis, they will likely throw out any use of the law to profile. I know it's not said explicitly, but I read a LOT of these opinions, and that's basically what they're saying.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.epslogos.net/logo_images/logos/FARM-BUREAU-CO-OP.jpg){kind=logo}
![[image loading]](http://bourgy.com/images/not_this_shit_again.jpeg)
