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.
Floridasandy didn't dance around the question, pretty much said the same as I did, you failed to accept it or you failed to comprehend it.
More claptrap rationalizing your indefensible perspective. Try posting something new next time; perhaps something that involves considering the needs of others before your own comfort and luxury.
I would submit that there are more republicans who are against illegal immigration than democrats, and that includes fining and/or putting the employer out of business for hiring illegal workers.
fiscal conservatives particularly understand the no win policy of bringing in more workers without more real jobs available, and small businesses suffer when people have less disposable income.
Interesting point. On the first one I agree, though we may not agree on the reasons. It isn't patriotism or that they have our best interest in their hearts. They don't want them here because they won't vote Republican and the illegals and their children are large enough in number to make a difference at the polls, and they will just continue the grow given that this largely uneducated population is growing at a much faster rate than the GOP voter base is. At least the smart Republicans realize this. Unfortunately, there are enough dumb ones making this much more interesting than it needs to be!
On the second point, I am not sure I agree. Republicans do not get their money from small business. They get it from big business, which actually has an incentive for more illegals to come after this amnesty gets passed. If not for sticky voting issue they're now faced with, Republicans would either support amnesty or, more likely, advocate the status quo of a shadow workforce with less rights.
Sum -- Most Republicans will oppose amnesty because it threatens their political existence. But for that, they either would have no opposition to amnesty or would be indifferent to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
for the democratic party, it is pretty obvious that they just want more voters and they don't care about the cost. It's like "shop 'til you drop" economics.
Sadly, I agree, and this is an embarassment for moderate Democrats. The supporters are largely radicals with a subtle racist agenda -- who represent the entire Democratic party as much as the radical Christian right represents all Republicans.
But, also too, bear and mind that Republicans oppose amnesty because they don't want the Democrats to get those votes. So it's all about votes, on both sides. No one is noble here. Underscores the need for more parties, like the Green Party, Workers' Party, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
Look at the big unions-they are endorsing the illegal immigration bill:
Church World Service, the AFL-CIO and other groups are urging senators not to reduce family reunification visas.
that means bringing in more "unskilled families" as opposed to highly skilled workers. (interpret that to mean those future liberal democratic voters). I don't know where they think they are going to get their dues money when everybody is underemployed per salary or hours.
Churches are of course going to support amnesty, but we have separation of church and state so their opinion is irrelevant. I agree 100% on the unions. Now, not all unions are for amnesty but the support from some is highly puzzling. It's a very shortsighted view and does not take into account the larger picture of the labor market in this country. We actually need more skilled workers, and no more unskilled workers, which we have an abundence of. We would have an even greater abundance if we added a work requirement to welfare benefits. We can easily get more unskilled laborers from south of the border and elsewhere if it indeed turns out they are "doing jobs Americans won't do." That wouldn't be hard to rectify -- through a Visa program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
you actually would need a border fence if you really were waging a "war on terror", but maybe we aren't. It wouldn't be just to keep the extra "workers" out, but to keep the "terrorists" out as well. Evidently, that isn't really much of a problem-so you wonder why we have to pay to send young men and women to go to other countries to fight and/or die.
Terrorists are not jumping a border fence into California. They are sophisticated and here on legal visas. I repeat my position that if you want to stop the problem, focus on the employers. Some conservatives on here say, "well, it's so hard for an employer to know if the worker is illegal" and blah blah. One word "e-verify." If the employer uses e-verify but the worker slipped through, it's an affirmative defense. If the employer failed, bye bye business license. That would solve about 90% of the problem alone.
More claptrap rationalizing your indefensible perspective. Try posting something new next time; perhaps something that involves considering the needs of others before your own comfort and luxury.
Calptrap rationalizing? Indefensible perspective? Sorry, I'm not a Socialist like you, neither is most of the USA. You can take your Socialism and shuv-it. Others can fend for themselves, they are not my responsibility. If they can't manage to take care of themselves then who's fault is it....NOT mine. Now go like a good little socialist.
More claptrap rationalizing your indefensible perspective. Try posting something new next time; perhaps something that involves considering the needs of others before your own comfort and luxury.
Agreed about the NEEDS of my fellow Americans. I DON'T care about any "need" of any illegal alien in the US except they need to go home. Sheesh!
I also agree about the Boomers maybe facing tougher times although some of us older X'ers are in the same leaky money boat. Maybe we'll have to work a bit longer before retiring. Tho the Boomers and now X'er ARE really starting follow the older groups into death so they're less and less of us each year. That sounds "mean" but it's the truth.
Calptrap rationalizing? Indefensible perspective? Sorry, I'm not a Socialist like you
I'm not a Socialist. I'm a moral person. I can understand that you perhaps are unable to tell the difference. It's cheap and easy to call everyone who disagrees with your immoral, self-serving nonsense a "Socialist".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
Agreed about the NEEDS of my fellow Americans. I DON'T care about any "need" of any illegal alien in the US except they need to go home. Sheesh!
As I've mentioned several times in this thread, I am on the fence with the regard to illegal aliens. On the one hand, a loving God wouldn't make national distinctions like that, but we aren't God and therefore are incapable and not even well-placed to save the whole world all at once.
It heartens me to see that even in such a place like the Internet that attracts so many self-centered greed-mongers, people still believe in the social obligation to each other twice as much as deny it: http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-p...less-fortunate
Now if we could just get people to vote based on that belief, instead of voting their own greed, or some other nonsense, things would be a lot better in this country.
Good question: How do those who support policies that serve their own personal comfort and luxury, over the basic needs of those less fortunate, sleep at night? Must be by just repeating the deception to themselves so much that they actually start believing it, and start believing that selfishness is a virtue and compassion is a vice. What a messed up world is being created by those who have their priorities so totally corrupted and turned upside down.
Good question: How do those who support policies that serve their own personal comfort and luxury, over the basic needs of those less fortunate, sleep at night? Must be by just repeating the deception to themselves so much that they actually start believing it, and start believing that selfishness is a virtue and compassion is a vice. What a messed up world is being created by those who have their priorities so totally corrupted and turned upside down.
Don't mean to butt in here but by those less fortunate are you referring to illegal immigrants? I mean, this is the illegal immigration forum, you know. I think most Americans support Americans who are less fortunate (not by their own actions) than themselves. Are you suggesting we support illegal foreigners who had no respect for our immigration laws also? There is only so much of our taxes to go around you know.
As for compassion, in keeping with this being the illegal immigration forum where was the compassion by these illegal foreingers and their advocates for Americans who have had to bear the brunt of illegal immigration and how it has negatively impacted them and their families?
Don't mean to butt in here but by those less fortunate are you referring to illegal immigrants?
No; see this earlier posting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
As I've mentioned several times in this thread, I am on the fence with the regard to illegal aliens. On the one hand, a loving God wouldn't make national distinctions like that, but we aren't God and therefore are incapable and not even well-placed to save the whole world all at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I mean, this is the illegal immigration forum, you know.
I know, but if you work your way back through the discussion, you'll find some folks made comments regarding poor folks in general rather than just illegal aliens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I think most Americans support Americans who are less fortunate (not by their own actions) than themselves.
I know, but if you work your way back through the discussion, you'll find some folks made comments regarding poor folks in general rather than just illegal aliens.
Remarkably, it's not true.
I know you didn't start this topic but I don't know what it has to do with illegal immigration which is what this forum is about. If we needed more workers due to the baby boomers retiring and there aren't enough Americans to fill jobs (find that hard to believe since we have 23 Americans out of work) then wouldn't we import more legal, foreign workers?
The topic has spun off into so many other directions and now the poor are being discussed. I don't get the connection between those things and illegal mmigration per se.
I disagree that most Americans mind helping the poor through their taxes or donations if they are truly needy "Americans". God knows we have enough bleeding heart liberals in this country also. The objection is to helping welfare queens, lazy people and illegal immigrants. Otherwise I agree with LR. What one earns belongs to themself and their families. Many Americans are just taking care of their basic needs also. Many aren't living the life of luxury.
If we needed more workers due to the baby boomers retiring and there aren't enough Americans to fill jobs (find that hard to believe since we have 23 Americans out of work) then wouldn't we import more legal, foreign workers?
As soon as we see unemployment dip down to the structural level of unemployment, that sounds fine. In the meantime, the difference is supported by institutionalized application of unfairness and exploitation. Farm visas and such shouldn't be used as a means of glutting the labor pool so as to reduce costs (i.e., artificially and unfairly spiking demand). If there is to be a cost to bringing in foreign workers (such as the depressive effect on wages more broadly), let it be borne solely by those who profit from using foreign workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
The topic has spun off into so many other directions and now the poor are being discussed. I don't get the connection between those things and illegal mmigration per se. I disagree that most Americans mind helping the poor through their taxes or donations if they are truly needy "Americans".
Well, you're wrong about that, and I'll be happy to work with you through direct messages to point you towards the thread were such people are professing their callous disregard. But if you're truly not in favor of discussing the more generalized poor in this forum, then do yourself a favor and not discuss the more generalized poor. I generally don't bring up tangents unless I misunderstand something someone writes, but if someone else brings tangents up I'll respond: The best way to rid the thread of discussions about the more generalized poor is for folks to stop posting about that topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
God knows we have enough bleeding heart liberals in this country also.
Evidently we don't, since economic inequality has doubled in a generation and there are many people still working very hard to make this nation less and less civilized, more and more callous toward those less fortunate. What we have far too many of are egoistic greed-mongers and their sycophants who are sold a promise that if they help the wealthy get richer at the expense of the poor that somehow they too will benefit, even though it does seem that most of those who support such offensively antisocial policies are actually harmed by those policies themselves, at least in the long-run. But, again, if you don't want to discuss the more generalized issue of wealth and poverty in America, then don't bring it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
The objection is to helping welfare queens, lazy people and illegal immigrants.
And as I've indicated already, I don't have a strong opinion on the illegal immigrants aspect. However, with regard to the rest, what I see very clearly is a bunch of right-wing rhetoric that carelessly disparages and marginalizes anyone who cannot make ends meet, ascribing vacuously self-serving labels like "welfare queens" and "lazy people" without actually knowing the entirety of the people that they're ascribing such labels. The reality is that very few if any of the working poor and those struggling to find gainful employment that I've met would fall into those categories. Rather, they're victims of an increasingly unfair economic system, within which economic inequality has doubled in a generation, within which productivity and profitability has continued to skyrocket over the last ten years while wages have remained flat. It surely would help a moral person to sleep at night thinking the worst of these poor folks, as you have, but given that it is not an honest and accurate characterization of the people you're referring to, as far as those I've met, it is undeserved relief. But, again, if you don't want to discuss the more generalized issue of wealth and poverty in America, then don't bring it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Otherwise I agree with LR. What one earns belongs to themself and their families.
Subject to society's determination of how much "rent" one owes for how much they extract from society's economic system. If you don't like it, then stop using money. Stop securing ownership of your real estate using society's means of establishing ownership of land. Stop calling on police, paid for by society's economy, to protect yourselves and your property. And so on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Many Americans are just taking care of their basic needs also.
And many Americans consider that third HDTV in the bedroom to be a basic need.
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.
like a good little socialist.
