|
|
On June 18 2012 11:52 Omnipresent wrote:Romney's stance on immigration is essentially build a fence, kick everyone who's here illegally out regardless of how or why they're here or how long they've been here, and then create an entirely new identification system for all non citizens. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Immigration.phpEven if it were somehow possible to seal the border, you couldn't possibly deport everyone who came here illegally. If you somehow managed to do that, it wouldn't be a compassionate or moral solution. There are millions of professional, educated, producive adults with no criminal record who were brought to the US illegally as children. They had no say in the matter, and have contributed to society since then. In what way is kicking these people out a smart plan? In what way is it morally right? Any immigration policy that doesn't include a way to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the US (short of deporting all of them) is not a serious policy. While Romney pays lip service to legal immigration, his position is clearly anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. He's playing to the xenophobic/ethnocentric wing of his party. I'd be much more worried if I thought he actually believed it, but it's bad enough that he's willing to take this stance for political reasons.
Because our government should deal with important issues at a compassionate and moral angle? That's preposterous.
|
Australia64 Posts
On June 16 2012 16:41 snailmouth wrote:
Also i love how nobody is bringing up the obviously untrue "we only pay 200 billion in interest" after i pointed out the ridiculously low rate that would require 0.013%
Sorry if this is a bit late, but the correct value would be a 1.3% interest rate.
You didn't multiply by 100 when you converted it to a percent.
I'm not trying to argue anything one way or the other, I'm just being a maths nazi.
|
On June 18 2012 14:26 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 11:52 Omnipresent wrote:Romney's stance on immigration is essentially build a fence, kick everyone who's here illegally out regardless of how or why they're here or how long they've been here, and then create an entirely new identification system for all non citizens. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Immigration.phpEven if it were somehow possible to seal the border, you couldn't possibly deport everyone who came here illegally. If you somehow managed to do that, it wouldn't be a compassionate or moral solution. There are millions of professional, educated, producive adults with no criminal record who were brought to the US illegally as children. They had no say in the matter, and have contributed to society since then. In what way is kicking these people out a smart plan? In what way is it morally right? Any immigration policy that doesn't include a way to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the US (short of deporting all of them) is not a serious policy. While Romney pays lip service to legal immigration, his position is clearly anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. He's playing to the xenophobic/ethnocentric wing of his party. I'd be much more worried if I thought he actually believed it, but it's bad enough that he's willing to take this stance for political reasons. Because our government should deal with important issues at a compassionate and moral angle? That's preposterous.
Whenever possible, it should. But you're right, that's really not reason enough on its own.
There are plenty of other reasons to take a more measured approach. Recently, Georgia enacted tough anti-immigrant legislation at the state level. Well it worked. Illegal immigrants fled the state, and Georgia's farmers low millions of dollars in unharvested crops. Because there were fewer people willing to do the job, they also paid more to have the crops they did manage to harvest picked and processed.
Then, lets take a hypothetical example of someone who came to the US illegally as a child, but has since grown up, finished college, and become a contributing member of society. He/she is smart, hard working, and well educated/trained. This is the kind of person you want in your society. Now this person cost local, state, and federal governments throughout his/her life, namely through public education, maybe an emergency room visit or two (which tax payers covered), and potential lost tax revenue (which someone with a real social security number would otherwise have paid, though more often than you'd think, illegal immigrants actually pay federal income/payroll taxes through their employers anyway). Given this situation, what solution makes the most sense? You can a) deport him/her, costing the taxpayers more money or b) grant him/her some form of legal status (citizenship or a work visa of some kind), maybe levy a fine, collect taxes, and keep that individual and his/her skills in the US. This person has already received a lot of benefits paid for by taxes. Why kick him/her out now? People just like this hypothetical person exist. Jose Antonio Vargas is one, but there are many others like him.
I won't advocate blanket amnesty, but there's no reason to kick otherwise honest, hard working, and productive people out of the country because of their immigration status, especially when that status is not their fault. Make amnesty contingent on factors like education, military service, paying back taxes, and having a free criminal record. There are dozens of other factors that could either include or disqualify people from receiving a proper legal status. I'm sure you could think of some.
|
On June 18 2012 14:26 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 11:52 Omnipresent wrote:Romney's stance on immigration is essentially build a fence, kick everyone who's here illegally out regardless of how or why they're here or how long they've been here, and then create an entirely new identification system for all non citizens. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Immigration.phpEven if it were somehow possible to seal the border, you couldn't possibly deport everyone who came here illegally. If you somehow managed to do that, it wouldn't be a compassionate or moral solution. There are millions of professional, educated, producive adults with no criminal record who were brought to the US illegally as children. They had no say in the matter, and have contributed to society since then. In what way is kicking these people out a smart plan? In what way is it morally right? Any immigration policy that doesn't include a way to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the US (short of deporting all of them) is not a serious policy. While Romney pays lip service to legal immigration, his position is clearly anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. He's playing to the xenophobic/ethnocentric wing of his party. I'd be much more worried if I thought he actually believed it, but it's bad enough that he's willing to take this stance for political reasons. Because our government should deal with important issues at a compassionate and moral angle? That's preposterous.
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization?
|
On June 18 2012 07:48 DocTheMedic wrote:
Well, Obama suddenly directly alleviated the burden of the undocumented youths in the country. A bit close to election time, but a historic, far-reaching good for many people nonetheless. Any thoughts on this? Is this move going to help Obama in the election? How will Romney respond?
Romney has for the most part been evasive, saying that immigration is a complex issue, and that Obama's solution is a stop gap measure that could easily be repealed by the next president.
He has yet to say whether he would repeal or not.
Remember, during the Republican Primary he basically took Rick Perry to task for being sympathetic to immigrants in his own state.
If he opposes immigration, it would further distance himself from latino swing voters -- Latino evangelicals are a fast growing demographic, and a demographic he has a legitimate chance of capturing..
If he supports it, he would antagonize the hyper-conservative, highly vocal, and frankly xenophobic extremists that are the foot soldiers of his grassroots campaign. Let's be honest, the most active supportors -- I'm strictly speaking at the grassroots-let's-troll-Obama-rallies level -- are also the craziest.
To answer you're question, Yes this helps Obama. Moves like these force Romney to actually take positions and have policies on issues.
So far Romney's entire campaign has been revolved around on not being Obama. That might be good enough for simpletons and racists and billionaries, but eventually he's going to actually have to promote his own policies.
I think Romney should move to center, support Rubio's revision of the Dream Act, and say that he won't repeal the president's decision if he were president. It WILL alienate some of his constituents and reveal himself as a flip-flopper, but he already has the Republican nomination. The extremists that hate Obama and believe he is a socialist-Nazi-Muslim will still vote against him.
|
On June 18 2012 14:26 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 11:52 Omnipresent wrote:Romney's stance on immigration is essentially build a fence, kick everyone who's here illegally out regardless of how or why they're here or how long they've been here, and then create an entirely new identification system for all non citizens. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Immigration.phpEven if it were somehow possible to seal the border, you couldn't possibly deport everyone who came here illegally. If you somehow managed to do that, it wouldn't be a compassionate or moral solution. There are millions of professional, educated, producive adults with no criminal record who were brought to the US illegally as children. They had no say in the matter, and have contributed to society since then. In what way is kicking these people out a smart plan? In what way is it morally right? Any immigration policy that doesn't include a way to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the US (short of deporting all of them) is not a serious policy. While Romney pays lip service to legal immigration, his position is clearly anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. He's playing to the xenophobic/ethnocentric wing of his party. I'd be much more worried if I thought he actually believed it, but it's bad enough that he's willing to take this stance for political reasons. Because our government should deal with important issues at a compassionate and moral angle? That's preposterous.
Health care providers are legally bound to provide emergency services, regardless if someone is or isn't insured. That's a standard set by government for moral reasons.
The American government routinely considers the morality of issues. You can debate what those should be, the ideology that drives them, and how far they should extend, but the debate itself isn't preposterous.
|
Just because an action is considered morally correct doesn't mean the government should necessarily do it. There are other things to consider, like cost and feasibility.
However, if an action is immoral, that's a pretty strong reason for the government NOT to do it.
Deporting people who were brought here as children and have now lived most of their lives in this country seems like an example of the latter.
|
Wouldn't not doing a morally correct action be considered immoral? It seems like it could be all about wording.
"freeing the slaves" would be considered morally correct, but would be costly to the economy (of the past) and the feasibility of all of those people hundreds of years ago suddenly being free had to have been difficult for the system.
But it would be immoral to not end slavery.
(this is just an example, obviously slavery is horrible etc etc)
|
There was a good reason we tried to avoid dealing with slavery as long as possible.
Besides, we didn't end slavery on moral reasons, but rather on political ones. England was supporting the Confederacy and the only way we could force them to stay out was declare that the Civil War was a war over slavery (Europe could not justify supporting slavery in such a war because of their commitment to anti-slavery). Lincoln wasn't actually too big on freeing the slaves.
|
On June 19 2012 01:50 Lightwip wrote:
There was a good reason we tried to avoid dealing with slavery as long as possible.
Besides, we didn't end slavery on moral reasons, but rather on political ones. England was supporting the Confederacy and the only way we could force them to stay out was declare that the Civil War was a war over slavery (Europe could not justify supporting slavery in such a war because of their commitment to anti-slavery). Lincoln wasn't actually too big on freeing the slaves.
While I agree with the general sentiment of this post, it still reeks of an oversimplification. The use of "we" implies some sort of standard engagement with Civil War justification on the side of the Union, and while the government may have acted on primarily political impetuses, many many people involved themselves in the war for moral reasons. In fact, the exact nature of Lincoln's attitude is anything but distinct given the incomplete nature of the evidence at our disposal, meaning these sorts of discussions are usually just a waste of time.
|
On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization?
Civilization =/= government.
Not to mention I would disagree either way.
|
On June 18 2012 17:06 Defacer wrote:
Health care providers are legally bound to provide emergency services, regardless if someone is or isn't insured. That's a standard set by government for moral reasons.
The American government routinely considers the morality of issues. You can debate what those should be, the ideology that drives them, and how far they should extend, but the debate itself isn't preposterous.
How very wrong you are. Those kind of laws are created by lawyers and politicians to gain money in some of the most immoral and destructive ways with stupid lawsuits. You really have to be a fool to believe that politicans have greater moral conciousness that outweighs their desire to make a buck.
|
On June 19 2012 03:25 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:06 Defacer wrote:
Health care providers are legally bound to provide emergency services, regardless if someone is or isn't insured. That's a standard set by government for moral reasons.
The American government routinely considers the morality of issues. You can debate what those should be, the ideology that drives them, and how far they should extend, but the debate itself isn't preposterous. How very wrong you are. Those kind of laws are created by lawyers and politicians to gain money in some of the most immoral and destructive ways with stupid lawsuits. You really have to be a fool to actually believe that politicians have a greater moral conscious than to think they have a desire to make to make a buck.
Glaring errors in grammar aside, only a sith speaks in absolutes, and just as all politicians do not have moral interests at heart , all politicians are not evil greedy bastards. The cliche "I HATE ALL POLITICIANS" is consummate despair, and should be regarded as a weak and cowardly oversimplification.
|
Actually Romney said, early during the GOP nomination race, of self deportation which was stupid and he knew it. Then he actually mentioned National ID Cards which nobody seemed to notice, not even Ron Paul.
|
On June 19 2012 01:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 01:50 Lightwip wrote:
There was a good reason we tried to avoid dealing with slavery as long as possible.
Besides, we didn't end slavery on moral reasons, but rather on political ones. England was supporting the Confederacy and the only way we could force them to stay out was declare that the Civil War was a war over slavery (Europe could not justify supporting slavery in such a war because of their commitment to anti-slavery). Lincoln wasn't actually too big on freeing the slaves. While I agree with the general sentiment of this post, it still reeks of an oversimplification. The use of "we" implies some sort of standard engagement with Civil War justification on the side of the Union, and while the government may have acted on primarily political impetuses, many many people involved themselves in the war for moral reasons. In fact, the exact nature of Lincoln's attitude is anything but distinct given the incomplete nature of the evidence at our disposal, meaning these sorts of discussions are usually just a waste of time.
This is a good point.
Even if the last Iraq war was really just a neocon excuse to test the merits of installing democracies in the middle east, the Bush administration did partially argue the moral imperative for starting the war on occasion, to congress and the American people -- spouting talking points like preserving 'freedoms' and such.
It's funny, because if people wanted to remove morality from policy, than I would think the current GOP would the LAST party to vote for. You have a Republican primary where the second-runner-up's entire appeal was based on UNseparating church and state.
Both parties have problems, but the GOP really needs to hit reset the button. You don't see Democrats pandering to hippy-dippy stoners the way you see Republican's pander to gun-nuts and homophobic evangelicals.
Democrats could have risked aligning themselves with the Occupy movement. Thank god they didn't. Now the Tea Party has the GOP by the balls.
|
On June 19 2012 03:33 farvacola wrote:
Glaring errors in grammar aside, only a sith speaks in absolutes, and just as all politicians do not have moral interests at heart , all politicians are not evil greedy bastards. The cliche "I HATE ALL POLITICIANS" is consummate despair, and should be regarded as a weak and cowardly oversimplification.
There are no cliches when it comes to politicians. While it may be true there are some politicians that are truly good people, they are few and far between and get buried politically by the horrible ones. My point still stands.
Also are you happy now?
|
On June 19 2012 03:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Actually Romney said, early during the GOP nomination race, of self deportation which was stupid and he knew it. Then he actually mentioned National ID Cards which nobody seemed to notice, not even Ron Paul.
This is correct. I'm not sure what the hell a policy of 'self-deportation' means. It's like saying, 'Let's make sure they're lives are miserable enough that they'll want to leave!"
|
On June 19 2012 03:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 03:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Actually Romney said, early during the GOP nomination race, of self deportation which was stupid and he knew it. Then he actually mentioned National ID Cards which nobody seemed to notice, not even Ron Paul. This is correct. I'm not sure what the hell a policy of 'self-deportation' means. It's like saying, 'Let's make sure they're lives are miserable enough that they'll want to leave!"
That's one possibility, though Romney would probably argue that people should self deport as a patriotic act, or so they could then apply for citizenship/residence from outside the country.
There's also the chance that Republicans have simply misunderstood this joke.
|
On June 19 2012 03:25 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:06 Defacer wrote:
Health care providers are legally bound to provide emergency services, regardless if someone is or isn't insured. That's a standard set by government for moral reasons.
The American government routinely considers the morality of issues. You can debate what those should be, the ideology that drives them, and how far they should extend, but the debate itself isn't preposterous. How very wrong you are. Those kind of laws are created by lawyers and politicians to gain money in some of the most immoral and destructive ways with stupid lawsuits. You really have to be a fool to believe that politicans have greater moral conciousness that outweighs their desire to make a buck.
Even a robot like Romney, who seems to be as amoral and opportunistic a political sociopath as they come, is still subject to the morality of voters and society at large.
Romney would never run on a 'Let's kill poor people by denying emergency care' ticket, because he'd fucking lose.
It's in a politician's self interest to allow voters to be therr conscience, even if they don't have one.
|
On June 19 2012 03:59 Defacer wrote:
Even a robot like Romney, who seems to be as amoral and opportunistic a political sociopath as they come, is still subject to the morality of voters and society at large.
Romney would never run on a 'Let's kill poor people by denying emergency care' ticket, because he'd fucking lose.
It's in a politician's self interest to allow voters to be therr conscience, even if they don't have one.
I think a great solution would be to allow private charities and organizations allow to be hospitals, rather than deny them to take care of people who really need help. But that wouldn't work out, because Mr. Big Government Defacer would disapprove of having the government lose control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
