U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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, 02:13 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,385,999 times
Reputation: 2345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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.
Nah. That's not it at all. We're arguing that the state has certain responsibilities towards its citizens that it does not towards foreigners. That's a basic principle of modern life. Most people accept that fact and get over it.

We're sorry this argument appears too difficult for you to grasp. Illegals are only "entitled" to fines, jail sentences and being kicked out.

Quote:
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?
See that's why we have these concepts called nation states. Again I'm sorry that you apparently feel no loyalty towards this country and only regard it as a piece of dirt.

Quote:
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.
That is a libertarian misreading of history.

Quote:
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.
We've pointed out to you that the country does not work that way. Catholics don't get the "right" to avoid funding things they don't like anymore than the childless get out of funding the schools. You don't get a line item veto on your taxes. Again get over it.

Quote:
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?
If you hate government that much go move someplace where it does not exist. Somalia's not my cup of tea but it might be your ideal place.

Quote:
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?
You're being obtuse. The government does not consult with you individually when it spends tax dollars. if you don't like representative democracy you are free to leave it. I hear downtown Mogadishu is nice this time of year . . .

Quote:
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.
You can have your opinion all you like. Fellow posters are free to point out both how flawed it is and what would really happen if implemented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2012, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,813,362 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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?
No one is "entitled" to welfare. However, as a compassionate and humane nation, we provide for our citizens in need. But, our moral obligation does not extend to non-citizens, particularly, those here in violation of our laws. Again, citizenship has its privileges. I can't make it simpler than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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?

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?
As a taxpaying citizen of this country, it is understood that my federal and state taxes may be used to fund programs and services I may not support. Case in point: The billions of dollars squandered on our wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, and illegal aliens in this country. While I vehemently oppose these costly, unnecessary burdens, that's just the way it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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.
Yes, you are entitled to an opinion; as well as the right to try to sway the opinions of others. But, sorry, without a vote, you have no voice in our political process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 05:31 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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.
Again, this question falls back to the reason for the Preamble to the USC, to ourselves and our posterity, so by virtue of simply being a citizen they are "entitled" to certain things that others are not (it's not about virtue of birth, but acquisition of citizenship status). The claim isn't about tax payers vs not tax payers, but about legality of working and legality of being here with the authorization of our gov't. Not even LPR/GC holders are allowed to receive welfare for their first 5 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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?
It shouldn't be. Only if their parents are LPR/GC holders, naturalized citizens or citizens themselves prior to the birth of the child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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.
The definition of Democracy (globally) is what you just claimed. Democracy within the US is as follows: Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. Which is mostly what does happen at the local levels within the States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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?
Welfare is taken from the general fund collected from taxation. It's not a forced tax, and since only those in the upper 40% pay taxes, I would argue it has no effect on people such as yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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?
Again, nobody is forced to pay as it is paid for through the general funds collected from each individual state, even the feds getting involved take it from the general fund. You are now confusing contraceptives with welfare? I agree, Catholics should not be forced to have insurance policies they do not want and those that work for them should not demand what they want as it is a benefit provided that can be easily taken away.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 07-17-2012 at 05:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 08:00 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,711,508 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
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?



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.



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.




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?



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?



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.
The taxpaying Americans can provide social programs for their fellow Americans - we can handle the needs of our own people. As a nation, we can have social safety nets -- however it's idiotic to think we can have a giant welfare program for the whole world and that our immigration policies should be about making the USA the world's flop house.

Let the illegals establish welfare handout programs back in their own country. Let them work for improvements to their own culture and governments.

At the very least, you have to admit that allowing anyone and everyone in when you're going to provide life-long welfare handouts like food stamps, Medicaid and so on is the ultimate stupidity. 68% of hispanic births are to single mothers, a big chunk of this are single mothers here illegally and obviously the taxpayers are who must pay for these children.

So end the welfare programs, at least for those pouring over the border illegally and then we can revisit the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2012, 10:23 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 3,969,789 times
Reputation: 1093
and of course, if the Welfare is too generous , it will just attract the foreign freeloaders in the first place - who can that possibly benefit?

and why should our wages drop because some outsider is prepared to work for less?

cut immigration now!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 01:41 AM
 
33,141 posts, read 39,090,825 times
Reputation: 28492
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
So how much more would our restaurants, groceries, lawn care, etc. cost without illegal immigration? Has anyone here ever considered that?
My parents had a lawn care company drop by the house twice a month to mow grass and sometimes trim bushes, the guys looked Hispanic so i guess that means they must have been illegals by current definitions, $75 a month was the charge..
They have recently moved across town and now have a new crew of gardeners real American looking guys with cowboy hats, i'll assume they are'nt illegals, charge?$75 a month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 03:32 AM
 
3,046 posts, read 2,645,070 times
Reputation: 1303
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickAssArmyChick View Post
How much money would we save by not having to provide anything to illegal aliens?

Have YOU ever considered that?

Our country was in MUCH better shape when illegal immigration was not out of control.

Go read a book.
FYI, you didn't base your opinion on any data. I can't say I disagree with your point, but you should go and read a book so you'll know what you're talking about. Posting on pure emotion is childish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 03:37 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 5,551,884 times
Reputation: 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
My parents had a lawn care company drop by the house twice a month to mow grass and sometimes trim bushes, the guys looked Hispanic so i guess that means they must have been illegals by current definitions, $75 a month was the charge..
They have recently moved across town and now have a new crew of gardeners real American looking guys with cowboy hats, i'll assume they are'nt illegals, charge?$75 a month.
Are you saying that Americans are doing the jobs that Americans do not want to do, as illegals and sympathizers claim?

If more and more Americans start taking back their jobs and more Americans do the right thing and employ Americans, we can expect to hear the argument that Americans are now taking jobs away from illegals.

At least with Americans that $75 goes back into our economy at some point, as opposed to half of it (at the minimum) going out of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 04:25 AM
 
33,141 posts, read 39,090,825 times
Reputation: 28492
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Are you saying that Americans are doing the jobs that Americans do not want to do, as illegals and sympathizers claim?

If more and more Americans start taking back their jobs and more Americans do the right thing and employ Americans, we can expect to hear the argument that Americans are now taking jobs away from illegals.

At least with Americans that $75 goes back into our economy at some point, as opposed to half of it (at the minimum) going out of the country.
Quite some wild assumptions you got going there blueyes I was basing my reply to this Question..
Quote:
So how much more would our restaurants, groceries, lawn care, etc. cost without illegal immigration?
We have no proof that the Hispanics were illegal and if they were why would they send money back to Mexico when every one in Mexico is here..
Also the American looking guys could just as easily been a couple of illegals from Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2012, 07:10 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,286,582 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance View Post
FYI, you didn't base your opinion on any data. I can't say I disagree with your point, but you should go and read a book so you'll know what you're talking about. Posting on pure emotion is childish.
Being against illegal immigration is childish?
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