Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, that reason is that some people already got theirs and they want to keep other people from fairly competing with them for it. They want a handout. They want US taxpayers to pay for it.
That's what this is about. Lazy, entitled americans want me, the taxpayer, to fund their protectionist scheme.
LOL, you're reaaalllly bending yourself in all sorts of natural directions on this one.
Again, illegal immigrants are NOT fairly competing. Americans compete with Americans, and when no competent or available labor can be found, THEN we reach out to other nations.
On the contrary, YOU want MY tax dollars to pay for the unwanted third world poor that other nations. I don't believe for a second that you're in any position of authority or ownership in a business, so your motivation is not cowboy capitalism. Therefore, I won't chide you for wanting me to subsidize your bottom line by having to pay to raise the five kids of the illegal immigrant who picks tomatoes on your farm.
On the other hand, I will chide you for forcing me ... or even ASKING me... to pay taxes to subsidize your bleeding heart or ethnic loyalty. You want to help your compatriots? By all means, the old country is calling.
Who are the victims? The taxpayers. The environment. American workers competing for the same jobs. The infrastructure and social safety nets.
We have immigration laws, work visas and permits and quotas for a REASON.
It would serve you well to study those reasons and justifications. Maybe some Congressional notes or studies for extra credit.
Again... I cannot just move to Canada for work without going through a PROCESS. I cannot move to Japan and simply start working.
Only lala land "world without borders, world citizens" types fail to grasp the reasons.
Most illegal immigrants pay taxes. Environmental concerns due to movement of people isn't something that is strictly limited to people who come over here illegally. The net environmental impact from people moving into this country does not differ due to the legal designation of a particular immigrant. Therefor if you believe any influx of people is detrimental to the environment (which is questionable in and of itself) your argument is against immigration in general, not illegal immigrants per say. Economic protectionism actually hurts those it intends to protect, this is widely accepted as true in mainstream economics. You are going to have to provide proof that illegal immigrants are victimizing infrastructure and social safety nets, because for the most part they are paying taxes which cover these costs.
So your justification for having protectionist policies against allowing immigration for people who want to work is because Canada doesn't allow it either?
Also it's important to note that its very strange for someone who is presumably concerned with environmental protection(it was the second thing you listed as a victim of illegal immigration) would openly mock the idea of a world with out borders and world citizens. Anyone who has any idea about environmental protection knows that the environment doesn't give a **** about imaginary lines drawn on a map and that those lines, more often than not do more harm than good from an environmental perspective.
But (and I already asked this once without a response) do you think my opinion of who should be allowed to visit your garage is more important than your opinion?
No, I did respond to you. It's not a matter of who is allowed to "visit" your garage. The moment your "visitors" become "permanent residents" and MY tax dollars have to start paying to feed, clothe, and educate the children of your "visitors," then I have a say in whether or not you get to keep your little pets out in your garage.
You are relying on that argument implicitly. The only difference between "you immigrate illegally, you face the consequences" and "you walk around in town, you get mugged" that you've offered so far is that one is THE LAW.
Quote:
I happen to think (as do most people) that there is nothing unjust about deporting illegals. On the contrary, non-enforcement of immigration laws is UNJUST.
Picking someone up and moving them against their will is just? Please explain how. I mean, I'm assuming you're not going to rely on the "it's THE LAW, therefore it must be just" excuse here, right?
What is unjust about non-enforcement of a bad law?
Quote:
Pray tell, what rights of theirs are being violated? The right to....um... violate laws of another nation?
It doesn't matter. Your argument is "mexico does X, ergo it's cool if we do X". Which is obviously ridiculous.
But since you asked, their right to do business and engage in voluntary transactions with consenting adults.
Quote:
They don't GET a 'fair shot' to compete for jobs because they aren't supposed to be in the labor pool AT ALL. THAT is reserved for AMERICANS. Why can't you comprehend that?
I do get that. So you agree, the fact that they're looking to work is "looking for trouble" in your book?
Quote:
Again. Explain the logic: Mexico: 5% unemployment. Guatemala: 3% unemployment. United States: 10%.
Explain what?
Quote:
Nope. Americans have the right and privilege to move about the country as they please. See for reference: US Constitution and case law construing same.
(actually, to aide in your endevour on this board, you MIGHt want to spend a bit more time studying both anyway!)
I'm not confused about what the current law is. At all.
Please. Sales taxes? Pittance. Most illegal immigrants that have any children here will most likely eat up a lifetime of taxes paid IN to the system working unskilled labor in just a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viridian Ideals
Environmental concerns due to movement of people isn't something that is strictly limited to people who come over here illegally. The net environmental impact from people moving into this country does not differ due to the legal designation of a particular immigrant. Therefor if you believe any influx of people is detrimental to the environment (which is questionable in and of itself) your argument is against immigration in general, not illegal immigrants per say.
No.
Our quotas, etc. are designated and designed for and should promote SUSTAINABLE growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viridian Ideals
Economic protectionism actually hurts those it intends to protect, this is widely accepted as true in mainstream economics.
Nice try, conflating free trade ideals with immigration enforcement and calling it "protectionism"!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viridian Ideals
You are going to have to provide proof that illegal immigrants are victimizing infrastructure and social safety nets, because for the most part they are paying taxes which cover these costs.
See above. Assume an illegal immigrant family where the husband makes a generous $10/hour and has two kids. Those two kids (who should not and would not be "in the system" had their parents followed the rules) would for 18 years have the following:
Education - $5k - $10k/year EACH
WIC/Foodstamps
Medicaid
Earned Income Tax Credit
How much do you think a $10/hr employee pays in taxes a year, anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viridian Ideals
So your justification for having protectionist policies against allowing immigration for people who want to work is because Canada doesn't allow it either?
My justification is that the laws of the United States exist to protect AMERICANS. Call me a populist if you'd like. At any rate, I have no moral, social, or economic obligation to take in the third world's refuse. Comprende?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viridian Ideals
Also it's important to note that its very strange for someone who is presumably concerned with environmental protection(it was the second thing you listed as a victim of illegal immigration) would openly mock the idea of a world with out borders and world citizens. Anyone who has any idea about environmental protection knows that the environment doesn't give a **** about imaginary lines drawn on a map and that those lines, more often than not do more harm than good from an environmental perspective.
Oh, so to be concerned about protection of American resources and environment, I have to adopt a hippie open world perspective? Yours is a rather warped perspective. It's so frustrating when people do not fit into neat little ideological boxes, innit?
LOL, you're reaaalllly bending yourself in all sorts of natural directions on this one.
Again, illegal immigrants are NOT fairly competing.
You're assuming your conclusion.
Quote:
Americans compete with Americans, and when no competent or available labor can be found, THEN we reach out to other nations.
Who I "reach out to" is frankly none of your business. I mean, I know you're going to snap back with THE LAW SAYS IT IS. But that's not a justification (after all, you yourself were aghast at the suggestion that you believed THE LAW is inherently just).
Do you believe the government can tell businesses how they should operate better than actual business owners?
Quote:
On the contrary, YOU want MY tax dollars to pay for the unwanted third world poor that other nations. I don't believe for a second that you're in any position of authority or ownership in a business, so your motivation is not cowboy capitalism. Therefore, I won't chide you for wanting me to subsidize your bottom line by having to pay to raise the five kids of the illegal immigrant who picks tomatoes on your farm.
No, I don't want your tax dollars to pay for unwanted third world poor. I against most aspects of the welfare state.
Quote:
On the other hand, I will chide you for forcing me ... or even ASKING me... to pay taxes to subsidize your bleeding heart or ethnic loyalty. You want to help your compatriots? By all means, the old country is calling.
Really? They're in your garage right now? Go ahead and kick them out IMO. I know lots of people who will happily rent to them.
Quote:
No, I did respond to you. It's not a matter of who is allowed to "visit" your garage. The moment your "visitors" become "permanent residents" and MY tax dollars have to start paying to feed, clothe, and educate the children of your "visitors," then I have a say in whether or not you get to keep your little pets out in your garage.
So I can invite people over to my house but I can't rent space to them? I still don't get it. Landlords should all be rounded up as traitors to the US?
Who I "reach out to" is frankly none of your business.
Um, yes it is. Again, because you're actions and choices affect ME. Therefore, I get a say. If you want to live in anarcho-capitalist land, or whatever your "end game" is, may I suggest you start searching for same elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
Do you believe the government can tell businesses how they should operate better than actual business owners?
The government gets to tell you what a minimum wage is. They get to tell you what protections you must provide your employees, and the government gets to tell you that you that you cannot import underpaid pseudo slaves to work at your hypothetical business.
Why? Because without the protections of the American government, its laws and court systems, you're business would fail to attract the capital, credit and dispute recourse and confidence that all businesses enjoy by virtue of being in the united states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
No, I don't want your tax dollars to pay for unwanted third world poor. I against most aspects of the welfare state.
Well realize that your current position is EXACTLY leading to that.
Until the (very unlikely day that) "welfare state" is done away with, you're going to have to realize that importing MORE mouths to feed when we're struggling to take care of our OWN is a very real concern for many fellow AMERICANS and the government.
So put your aspirations of a $2/hour wage based business on hold, or adapt. If you can't make it work in the existing framework without resorting to illegal labor that undercuts the market, you're not a very good businessman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
I'm white, dude.
Yes, with each posts your political philosophy reveals itself a bit more.
Well, I've always said the ethnic sympathizers and wannabe cowboy libertarian capitalists make strange bedfellows.
Really? They're in your garage right now? Go ahead and kick them out IMO. I know lots of people who will happily rent to them.
Failure to grasp concept of "analogy" and "metaphor?" Really, this sort of thing should have been covered in elementary school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
So I can invite people over to my house but I can't rent space to them? I still don't get it. Landlords should all be rounded up as traitors to the US?
What's the matter? Did you get fined for running an illegal immigrant flop house or something? You've got some amazing hangups in this regard.
LOL, you're reaaalllly bending yourself in all sorts of natural directions on this one.
Again, illegal immigrants are NOT fairly competing. Americans compete with Americans, and when no competent or available labor can be found, THEN we reach out to other nations.
On the contrary, YOU want MY tax dollars to pay for the unwanted third world poor that other nations. I don't believe for a second that you're in any position of authority or ownership in a business, so your motivation is not cowboy capitalism. Therefore, I won't chide you for wanting me to subsidize your bottom line by having to pay to raise the five kids of the illegal immigrant who picks tomatoes on your farm.
On the other hand, I will chide you for forcing me ... or even ASKING me... to pay taxes to subsidize your bleeding heart or ethnic loyalty. You want to help your compatriots? By all means, the old country is calling.
Americans are competing with the Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, Canadians in (almost) every thing they do on "uneven" ground. America used to produce a lot of textiles on the East Coast. In the 80s - 90s textile manufacturing moved to China. Now when the idea of T shirts came up did America hold some kind of meeting and asked who wanted to make T shirts, and when no one said yes they China stood up and said we'll take it? No.
Chinese workers competed with American workers on wages and Americans lost. The jobs moved to China. Now you can say whatever about the working conditions etc, but the fact is that Americans compete worldwide simultaneously ( or near simultaneously) and "unfairly" in wages/skills/efficiency and those jobs disappear from America if we don't win, and bureaucratic protectionism only stifles job growth and economic efficiency if used as a protection against competition. See Japanese rice prices.
Last edited by VerticalReasoning; 07-15-2011 at 05:08 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
