U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-17-2012, 12:52 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,388,658 times
Reputation: 2345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
I committed no contradiction. It's possible to receive welfare benefits and hold a job. Even those nominally on unemployment can have jobs under the table. Why do you believe that they should receive state welfare? Please understand, I'm not against charitable contributions, but the case of state welfare is unique in that everyone is forced to pay taxes against their will for it. Why should anyone have that right?

Why do they have a right to be here? Because they were born here? How does that make one deserving of special treatment? Are babies born in one side of the border inherently American because of which side of the border they were born in? Do Canadian babies come with a little maple leaf flag? One can certainly become an American by his or her actions in life, but why is the simple act of birth sufficient for some?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that migrants deserve the same state welfare as others do. I'm saying noone does. I'd take more weight to your words that 'we take care of our own', if it wasn't that the funds weren't taken forcefully from those who earned the money fairly. I have a hard time accepting anything moral can be done based on thievery.
Every country has laws and borders. Why should Americans be the exception? The US was not created to make life easier for Latinos who violate our immigration laws. It was established so that "the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Providing welfare to our citizens is a perfect expression of this principle. We maintain a civil society when we do so. Providing welfare to what amounts to Mexico's underclass does nothing of the sort. Instead it encourages Mexico's least citizens to move here and burden our middle class.

Our domestic policies should be designed to make the best America possible. We have no legal or moral obligation to factor the needs of foreign nationals into that task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2012, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,828,771 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
I committed no contradiction. It's possible to receive welfare benefits and hold a job. Even those nominally on unemployment can have jobs under the table. Why do you believe that they should receive state welfare? Please understand, I'm not against charitable contributions, but the case of state welfare is unique in that everyone is forced to pay taxes against their will for it. Why should anyone have that right?



Why do they have a right to be here? Because they were born here? How does that make one deserving of special treatment? Are babies born in one side of the border inherently American because of which side of the border they were born in? Do Canadian babies come with a little maple leaf flag? One can certainly become an American by his or her actions in life, but why is the simple act of birth sufficient for some?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that migrants deserve the same state welfare as others do. I'm saying noone does. I'd take more weight to your words that 'we take care of our own', if it wasn't that the funds weren't taken forcefully from those who earned the money fairly. I have a hard time accepting anything moral can be done based on thievery.
I have not one shred of evidence that the Occupy participants are welfare recipients. Nor am I privy to their occupations or income. Perhaps you'd like to share your proof. Regardless, as citizens of this country, they are afforded certain rights and privileges. You are certainly entitled to disagree. However, as a non-citizen, you do not have a voice in this matter.

The United States and Mexico are separate and sovereign nations. Those born on U.S. soil are generally conferred U.S. citizenship, while those born in Mexico are citizens by birth of that country. Citizenship in ANY country has its privileges. It is what it is.

I wholeheartedly support helping the needy, as long as they are trying to help themselves. Anything less is inhumane. However, I do not believe we should be the ATM for the entire world. I certainly don't believe foreigners should have the right to violate our laws by entering this country illegally, or deliberately overstaying visas, and then have their hand in MY wallet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 01:03 PM
 
153 posts, read 108,752 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Every country has laws and borders. Why should Americans be the exception? The US was not created to make life easier for Latinos who violate our immigration laws. It was established so that "the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Providing welfare to our citizens is a perfect expression of this principle. We maintain a civil society when we do so. Providing welfare to what amounts to Mexico's underclass does nothing of the sort. Instead it encourages Mexico's least citizens to move here and burden our middle class.

Our domestic policies should be designed to make the best America possible. We have no legal or moral obligation to factor the needs of foreign nationals into that task.
I never stated that the USA or its citizens had any moral or legal obligation to provide state welfare for others. Please don't imply that I did.

Providing state welfare, in the sense of wealth redistribution schemes, is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. The welfare clause is a poorly understood portion of the Constitution. It does not grant Congress the power to enact legislation for anything they deem to improve the welfare of the nation. To do so would undermine the purpose of the Constitution. Why list what Congress can do if that is the case? They could have simply said that Congress had the power to pass legislation for the welfare of the nation. No need to state that they could regulate interstate commerce or make IP laws.

What the welfare clause states is that, in addition to being a power specifically delegated to the federal Congress, legislation must also be for the better of the nation. Nowhere does the Constitution grant congress the power to legislate wealth redistribution schemes. So even if they were beneficial to the nation (they aren't), they could not be enacted under the current federal constitution.

Last edited by Frank_Knight; 07-17-2012 at 01:04 PM.. Reason: Typo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,828,771 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
I never stated that the USA or its citizens had any moral or legal obligation to provide state welfare for others. Please don't imply that I did.

Providing state welfare, in the sense of wealth redistribution schemes, is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. The welfare clause is a poorly understood portion of the Constitution. It does not grant Congress the power to enact legislation for anything they deem to improve the welfare of the nation. To do so would undermine the purpose of the Constitution. Why list what Congress can do if that is the case? They could have simply said that Congress had the power to pass legislation for the welfare of the nation. No need to state that they could regulate interstate commerce or make IP laws.

What the welfare clause states is that, in addition to being a power specifically delegated to the federal Congress, legislation must also be for the better of the nation. Nowhere does the Constitution grant congress the power to legislate wealth redistribution schemes. So even if they were beneficial to the nation (they aren't), they could not be enacted under the current federal constitution.
We have a moral obligation to help our needy citizens. Or, do you believe we should allow children to starve because their parents can't afford food?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 01:18 PM
 
153 posts, read 108,752 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
We have a moral obligation to help our needy citizens. Or, do you believe we should allow children to starve because their parents can't afford food?
I haven't said I'm against charity. Simply because the government can't do it doesn't mean we can't do it. Whatever the cause is we can't force others to pay for a program they may not believe in. Take for example the case of contraceptives and the Catholic Church. There is an argument to be made that providing contraceptives is good, but it is unfair for members of the Catholic Church to be forced to pay for something they don't believe in.

There is however no moral or legal obligation for state welfare. Donate all the money you want, but don't force others to do so. It is fallacious to believe your own morals are shared by 300+ million people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,828,771 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
I haven't said I'm against charity. Simply because the government can't do it doesn't mean we can't do it. Whatever the cause is we can't force others to pay for a program they may not believe in. Take for example the case of contraceptives and the Catholic Church. There is an argument to be made that providing contraceptives is good, but it is unfair for members of the Catholic Church to be forced to pay for something they don't believe in.

There is however no moral or legal obligation for state welfare. Donate all the money you want, but don't force others to do so. It is fallacious to believe your own morals are shared by 300+ million people.
Again, you do NOT have a voice in this matter. What the citizens of this country choose to accept, is our business. I don't need a law to dictate right from wrong. As a non-citizen, if you don't like our systems, nothing is forcing you to stay. I am sure there are far less charitable governments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 01:40 PM
 
153 posts, read 108,752 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Again, you do NOT have a voice in this matter. What the citizens of this country choose to accept, is our business. I don't need a law to dictate right from wrong. As a non-citizen, if you don't like our systems, nothing is forcing you to stay. I am sure there are far less charitable governments.
But your citizens don't accept this. The existence of the Libertarian movement, and to a lesser extent Tea Partiers and conservatives shows this clearly. You don't have to be a citizen to have knowledge of the Constitution. If your best retort is that non-citizens suddenly can't read or understand the constitution, I must say your logic is poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 01:55 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,388,658 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
I never stated that the USA or its citizens had any moral or legal obligation to provide state welfare for others. Please don't imply that I did.

Providing state welfare, in the sense of wealth redistribution schemes, is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. The welfare clause is a poorly understood portion of the Constitution. It does not grant Congress the power to enact legislation for anything they deem to improve the welfare of the nation. To do so would undermine the purpose of the Constitution. Why list what Congress can do if that is the case? They could have simply said that Congress had the power to pass legislation for the welfare of the nation. No need to state that they could regulate interstate commerce or make IP laws.

What the welfare clause states is that, in addition to being a power specifically delegated to the federal Congress, legislation must also be for the better of the nation. Nowhere does the Constitution grant congress the power to legislate wealth redistribution schemes. So even if they were beneficial to the nation (they aren't), they could not be enacted under the current federal constitution.
Start a thread in the other forum if you want. None of this childish rant has anything to do with illegal immigration which is the topic of this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
I haven't said I'm against charity. Simply because the government can't do it doesn't mean we can't do it. Whatever the cause is we can't force others to pay for a program they may not believe in. Take for example the case of contraceptives and the Catholic Church. There is an argument to be made that providing contraceptives is good, but it is unfair for members of the Catholic Church to be forced to pay for something they don't believe in.

There is however no moral or legal obligation for state welfare. Donate all the money you want, but don't force others to do so. It is fallacious to believe your own morals are shared by 300+ million people.
Again none of this has anything to do with the topic of illegal immigration. It's just regurgitated nonsense from the libertarianism handbook. The government forces us to pay for things we don't like all the time. It's called representative democracy. Get over it. If the Catholic church were in charge thousands of victims of pedophile priests would remain uncompensated and the pedophiles would remain in positions of power. Luckily for all of us the church is just another organization and not the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,828,771 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
But your citizens don't accept this. The existence of the Libertarian movement, and to a lesser extent Tea Partiers and conservatives shows this clearly. You don't have to be a citizen to have knowledge of the Constitution. If your best retort is that non-citizens suddenly can't read or understand the constitution, I must say your logic is poor.
Most DO accept it for those genuinely in need. Anyone can become unemployed and unable to support their family. Only the heartless would deny them assistance. But, no one likes a parasite.

Yes, you have every right to read and understand whatever you choose. However, unless you are a citizen, you have no input in how this country is governed. Therefore, while certainly entitled to your opinion, it holds no weight. No offense, simply stating a fact. Likewise, as a U.S. citizen, it would be the height of arrogance for me to suggest that I should have a right to determine the laws in Mexico, or any other country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 02:51 PM
 
153 posts, read 108,752 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Start a thread in the other forum if you want. None of this childish rant has anything to do with illegal immigration which is the topic of this forum.
But it does have to do with the topic of illegal immigration. The claims made by several posters here is that illegals shouldn't receive welfare. I agree to this, but find it curious why they believe others should be entitled to welfare by virtue of their birth place. Now if the claim was that welfare shouldn't be collected by those who haven't paid into the tax system, that is different. That would mean that those illegals who were net tax payers should be entitled to receive welfare benefits since they paid into the system. On the other hand those who didn't pay taxes, illegal or not, shouldn't be entitled to draw from the state welfare system.

I retain my initial question. Why is the act of birth in a given patch of land sufficient to warrant one's inclusion into the state welfare system? Are those born in dirt claimed by the federal government inherently American?

Quote:
Again none of this has anything to do with the topic of illegal immigration. It's just regurgitated nonsense from the libertarianism handbook. The government forces us to pay for things we don't like all the time. It's called representative democracy. Get over it.
It's a federal republic. The founders made no secret that they despised democracy. A tyranny of a voting plurality is hardly any more justifiable than a dictator who rules through the military.

Quote:
If the Catholic church were in charge thousands of victims of pedophile priests would remain uncompensated and the pedophiles would remain in positions of power. Luckily for all of us the church is just another organization and not the government.
No argument here. Who ever said that the Catholic Church should be in bed with the government though? I only said Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for something they believe is sinful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Most DO accept it for those genuinely in need.
Then there is no need for state welfare is there? Those who really believe in welfare will voluntary provide it through charity. Why force this majority if they'd do it without the threat of force? Is it to force the minority who don't want to? How do you justify using force against those who disagree?

Quote:
Anyone can become unemployed and unable to support their family. Only the heartless would deny them assistance. But, no one likes a parasite.
Again, I'm not opposing charitable welfare. I'm referring to state welfare where everyone is forced to pay into a program, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. You may claim that only the heartless oppose state welfare programs, but what of the Catholics? Are we heartless because we oppose contraceptives?

Quote:
Yes, you have every right to read and understand whatever you choose. However, unless you are a citizen, you have no input in how this country is governed. Therefore, while certainly entitled to your opinion, it holds no weight. No offense, simply stating a fact. Likewise, as a U.S. citizen, it would be the height of arrogance for me to suggest that I should have a right to determine the laws in Mexico, or any other country.
I'm not voting am I?

As you said, I can have my opinion. I can certainly attempt to persuade others of my opinion. Israel is infamous for its lobby in the United States, and it's hardly the only nation to have a lobby trying to influence US policy. In fact the Israeli lobby is so strong that it's political suicide to propose removing military aid to Israel in parts of the country. Likewise it's political suicide in parts of Florida to propose being friendly with the Castro brothers.

Non-citizens can have an opinion with 'weight', as you say. We simply can't vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top