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.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
It means I think all humans, regardless of where they were born, are equally important. It means I reject social structures that give special privileged to the chosen few by virtue of birth.
But those social structures also assure that you have your own home, you don't have to share it with anyone if you don't want to. Would you open your doors to any homeless person who wandered by and wanted to come live there, even if you didn't trust him or like him? He's a human being, and his needs are as important as your own, right?
We as a society have decided to make and enforce property laws. And like any laws, they don't work unless everyone is required to obey them.
Another example is the human body. Not just any microorganism is allowed to come in and multiply. In doing so, in setting up their own colonies without the permission of our immune system, they are likely to make the entire body sick or die. Some boundaries are good, we couldn't survive to be born without our boundaries and lethal defenses against illegal organisms.
We're allowing illegal aliens to come in and do work at a time when our own people don't have enough work. That's shameful. The reason for it is not that they do work we won't do, it's that we demand a fair wage - we want to make enough money to live in our own apartment or house, not packed 8 to a room .... we demand safe working conditions, not having pesticides dumped on our heads while out in the field .... we want overtime if working over 40 hours per week, sick days, unemployment insurance .... we want a pension when we get old so that we don't have to go scrounge in the city dump for things to sell or eat. Corporations or even small businesses that want to make a big profit don't want to pay for those things, and do an end run around them by hiring illegals.
Unfortunately then everyone has to do that to compete and stay in business, which messes up pay and conditions for American workers who want to get jobs too. Strict enforcement of immigration laws must be mandatory, with harsh fines for the corporation AND jail time for any management who allowed illegals to be hired.
I'm in favor of immigration. My parents immigrated to this country ..... legally. It's an insult to true, legal immigrants to call an illegal either just plain "immigrant" or "undocumented worker". The word "illegal" should be in any descriptive phrase concerning them.
The fact that a bunch of people want to restrict their movement doesn't mean such is legitimate. Your questions here beg the question. It's arrogant to assume they need your permission. Clearly, many americans DO want to do business with these people.
If I own a business, and I extend a job offer to someone, how is that NOT an "invitation"?
But you don't see a problem with telling them who they can and cannot do business with.
The issue isn't about "holding violators accountable." Again, that begs the question of whether that law is just in the first place.
The question begs how is the law unjust?
We tell businesses who they cant do business with all the time.
Can a a gun shop sell a gun to a convicted felon?
Can a pharmacy sell prescription drugs without a prescription?
Can a bar sell beer to a minor?
So yes we can designate laws about who is eligible to work here, who we can rent to etc.
many americans want to do business with drug dealers.
many want to do business chop shops.
Many want to do business meat markets that specialize in endangered species.
I suppose we need to define many.
Restricting movement.
Like it or not we have laws and for a reason. We restrict the movement of many convicted criminals. IE prison cells.
We restrict the movement of civilians from entering military installations.
We all stores to close and lock their doors.
Homeowners to do the same.
I have a swimming pool. Should I be forced to allow any who want to swim access to my pool?
More to the point why should we not restrict who enters this country? Do we actually owe anyone a VISA? Once again what makes it less than legetimate to do so?
Basically all you're saying here is "the law is just because it's the law. might makes right." It's completely empty.
But what makes the law unjust? We have a finite amount of resourses. We are in a recession and have a great many problems we need to over come. because another country has it worse by no means that we obligated to open our borders to them. We as a nation by international law have a right to determine who enters based on our own self interests. because individuals might not agree is not relevent. What is relevent is that we need to control immigration or we might find ourselves yet another 3rd world country.
But those social structures also assure that you have your own home, you don't have to share it with anyone if you don't want to. Would you open your doors to any homeless person who wandered by and wanted to come live there, even if you didn't trust him or like him? He's a human being, and his needs are as important as your own, right?
So you can't imagine a world with property rights without restrictive immigration controls? You're structuring your argument here as if the two are essentially linked and dependent on each other, and that just isn't the case.
Quote:
We're allowing illegal aliens to come in and do work at a time when our own people don't have enough work. That's shameful. The reason for it is not that they do work we won't do, it's that we demand a fair wage - we want to make enough money to live in our own apartment or house, not packed 8 to a room .... we demand safe working conditions, not having pesticides dumped on our heads while out in the field .... we want overtime if working over 40 hours per week, sick days, unemployment insurance .... we want a pension when we get old so that we don't have to go scrounge in the city dump for things to sell or eat. Corporations or even small businesses that want to make a big profit don't want to pay for those things, and do an end run around them by hiring illegals.
Unfortunately then everyone has to do that to compete and stay in business, which messes up pay and conditions for American workers who want to get jobs too. Strict enforcement of immigration laws must be mandatory, with harsh fines for the corporation AND jail time for any management who allowed illegals to be hired.
Now you're conflating "safe working conditions" with immigration controls. As I've mentioned previously, the question of what conditions employers are required to provide is easily separable from who is legally permitted to work a given job.
With respect to pay, that's really where the crux is. Basically what you're saying is you feel you deserve $X for a certain job. But there are other people willing to do that job for less, which makes you uncompetitive. In that situation you have some options:
* up your game (become more productive)
* find a different line of work where you can produce more value
* use government force to exclude those other workers from the market
When companies use government force to exclude their competitors from the market, we call that a monopoly and basically everyone (other than the monopoly holder) can easily see that it's an abusive, market-distorting situation that enriches one party at the expense of everyone else.
The question begs how is the law unjust?
We tell businesses who they cant do business with all the time.
Can a a gun shop sell a gun to a convicted felon?
Can a pharmacy sell prescription drugs without a prescription?
Can a bar sell beer to a minor?
So yes we can designate laws about who is eligible to work here, who we can rent to etc.
many americans want to do business with drug dealers.
many want to do business chop shops.
Many want to do business meat markets that specialize in endangered species.
I suppose we need to define many.
Restricting movement.
Like it or not we have laws and for a reason. We restrict the movement of many convicted criminals. IE prison cells.
We restrict the movement of civilians from entering military installations.
We all stores to close and lock their doors.
Homeowners to do the same.
I have a swimming pool. Should I be forced to allow any who want to swim access to my pool?
More to the point why should we not restrict who enters this country? Do we actually owe anyone a VISA? Once again what makes it less than legetimate to do so?
The fact that government tells people what to do isn't justification for telling people what to do.
And not all cases of telling people what to do (via law) are equal. There are significant distinctions.
Restricting movement of criminals is qualitatively different than pre-emptively restricting the movement of people who aren't criminals until they move somewhere you tell them not to go to.
Restricting people from entering private property is different as well. If you want to control access to your swimming pool, then go ahead, I support you. These sorts of immigration controls, however, are effectively YOU (and other people) telling ME who I can invite to MY swimming pool. Because YOU don't like them.
People doing business with drug dealers is actually a pretty good analogy, however. And yes, I think laws restricting those sorts of transactions are unjust. It's none of your business if someone else wants to smoke some weed. If you don't like it, don't smoke it.
Chop shops are different because you're talking about selling someone else's property without their consent.
So you can't imagine a world with property rights without restrictive immigration controls? You're structuring your argument here as if the two are essentially linked and dependent on each other, and that just isn't the case.
Now you're conflating "safe working conditions" with immigration controls. As I've mentioned previously, the question of what conditions employers are required to provide is easily separable from who is legally permitted to work a given job.
With respect to pay, that's really where the crux is. Basically what you're saying is you feel you deserve $X for a certain job. But there are other people willing to do that job for less, which makes you uncompetitive. In that situation you have some options:
* up your game (become more productive)
* find a different line of work where you can produce more value
* use government force to exclude those other workers from the market
When companies use government force to exclude their competitors from the market, we call that a monopoly and basically everyone (other than the monopoly holder) can easily see that it's an abusive, market-distorting situation that enriches one party at the expense of everyone else.
You've hijacked this thread....
Why not start your own thread concerning the injustice of a countries borders and it's restrictive immigration laws??????
BTW, the United States starting with 2006 allowed more people to immigrate than all the other countries in the world combined......
As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.[1] Since the removal of ethnic quotas in immigration in 1965,[2] the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[3] from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.[4] 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading emigrating countries to the United States were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China.[5]
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
So you can't imagine a world with property rights without restrictive immigration controls? You're structuring your argument here as if the two are essentially linked and dependent on each other, and that just isn't the case.
No, both examples were analogies, meant to help you understand that many boundaries are necessary for a good life within.
Quote:
Now you're conflating "safe working conditions" with immigration controls. As I've mentioned previously, the question of what conditions employers are required to provide is easily separable from who is legally permitted to work a given job.
Not so. An illegal doesn't dare to challenge dangerous working conditions (such as unregulated spraying of pesticides). After all, he would be deported if he did, and the employer wouldn't likely get any punishment - maybe a small fine at the most.
Quote:
With respect to pay, that's really where the crux is. Basically what you're saying is you feel you deserve $X for a certain job. But there are other people willing to do that job for less, which makes you uncompetitive. In that situation you have some options:
* up your game (become more productive)
* find a different line of work where you can produce more value
* use government force to exclude those other workers from the market
When companies use government force to exclude their competitors from the market, we call that a monopoly and basically everyone (other than the monopoly holder) can easily see that it's an abusive, market-distorting situation that enriches one party at the expense of everyone else.
No, the money saved by NOT paying unemployment insurance, overtime, safe working conditions, taxes, etc is very substantial, maybe more than the pay. We as a nation have the right to maintain basic standards even if an employer doesn't like them, so that we all have better lives. After all, we don't want to end up as a libertarian paradise like Mexico! I repeat that using illegals means that employers can violate those basic standards without fear of getting caught breaking the law.
By the way, all laws are backed up by government force. Laws have to be enFORCEd, or else they are just suggestions.
The emphasis should be on cracking down on employers who hire illegals, not the workers themselves. If all employers are forced to not hire them, than all employers will be on the same footing and competitive with each other, rather than some getting a huge break on costs by violating the law.
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.
