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.
ZeroiaSD ..... A little more on this, please. The Constitution applies to US citizens, not non-citizens.
This is a common misconception, but absolutely wrong. The protections of the Constitution apply to anyone within US jurisdiction. We can't throw foreign tourists in jail forever without charges and never give them a trial, after all.
As for prohibitions on what the government can do, such as respecting (as in endorsing) a specific religion, that applies to the government itself, irrespective of which people would be targeted by such an unconstitutional law.
ZeroiaSD ..... A little more on this, please. The Constitution applies to US citizens, not non-citizens. The First Amendment says that the Government won't sponsor a specific religion and it won't restrict US citizens ability to practice their religion. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court has made some modification that causes the Constitution to applicable to other countries? Thanks.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Right there in your own post. Like robbobobbo said, you're relying on a misconception that the bit you posted, possibly the most famous part of the amendments, doesn't apply. It does.
Note also how you're relying on a 'letter of the law' argument. Not only is it wrong, but it fails to address that the ethics of the situation is unchanged- this is a move prompted by nothing but xenophobia which should be beneath us, all of us, as a country. It benefits us none and is an act of mewling cowards who are afraid of people without knowing them, when Americans who *do* know them have already found them worthy friends.
Also we just found out in Virginia Court that in an underhanded move, rather than *delaying* things as originally indicated, Trump has ordered Visas *destroyed*. I.e. underhandedly destroying the work of people we've already checked out and found fine to join, often after they've paid significant cost. Keep fighting, Governor McAuliffe. Keep fighting.
Right there in your own post. Like robbobobbo said, you're relying on a misconception that the bit you posted, possibly the most famous part of the amendments, doesn't apply. It does.
Note also how you're relying on a 'letter of the law' argument. Not only is it wrong, but it fails to address that the ethics of the situation is unchanged- this is a move prompted by nothing but xenophobia which should be beneath us, all of us, as a country. It benefits us none and is an act of mewling cowards who are afraid of people without knowing them, when Americans who *do* know them have already found them worthy friends.
Also we just found out in Virginia Court that in an underhanded move, rather than *delaying* things as originally indicated, Trump has ordered Visas *destroyed*. I.e. underhandedly destroying the work of people we've already checked out and found fine to join, often after they've paid significant cost. Keep fighting, Governor McAuliffe. Keep fighting.
My problem is that the immigrants who came over in the late 1800's and early 1900's there were not so many social programs.
Now there are a lot of social programs and even the universal healthcare plan (no matter if it is the current one or a new one that is being discussed). It is not just a matter of "letting" refugees in, it is a commitment of funds.
I would like to see us get our national debt taken care of, help the people in the Midwest which for the most part are not seeing the prosperity of the coasts and fix our infrastructure before we start committing funds to helping people who have not paid into it.
My problem is that the immigrants who came over in the late 1800's and early 1900's there were not so many social programs.
Now there are a lot of social programs and even the universal healthcare plan (no matter if it is the current one or a new one that is being discussed). It is not just a matter of "letting" refugees in, it is a commitment of funds.
And of having more people to pay taxes? Because immigrants are overwhelmingly young and in prime working years- meaning, we neatly skipped those non-paying kid years straight to paying in adult years. Research has shown immigrant influxes help prompt job growth too.
I mean, if you're worried about people, then that applies to non-immigrants just as much if not more. Born Americans have many more non-paying years in them.
Quote:
I would like to see us get our national debt taken care of, help the people in the Midwest which for the most part are not seeing the prosperity of the coasts and fix our infrastructure before we start committing funds to helping people who have not paid into it.
So, taxes. Lots and lots of taxes.
Because, frankly, we have the money to handle all those things and more to spare. But we'd have to return to our historically-higher taxrates like we had in the past.
Immigrants, as mentioned, would be a boon to these things, not a minus. Because, to state the obvious, they pay taxes and that's how you get money for these things!
Don't let the xenophobes use immigrants as a scapegoat- the two issues are largely unrelated and indeed, "a bunch of healthy young workers" (and if older, usually skilled/trained individuals) is not something that an economy looking to grow wants to avoid!
And of having more people to pay taxes? Because immigrants are overwhelmingly young and in prime working years- meaning, we neatly skipped those non-paying kid years straight to paying in adult years. Research has shown immigrant influxes help prompt job growth too.
We already have a bunch of underemployed young people in this country. Why can we not use those?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroiaSD
I mean, if you're worried about people, then that applies to non-immigrants just as much if not more. Born Americans have many more non-paying years in them.
I agree, and we are already not doing a great job of taking care of many of our own. I think it is a great disservice to bring in people from other countries and treat them better. I see homeless people almost daily, I know we have poverty, I personally see a larger gap between the haves and the have nots than when I was younger and it seems the middle class is shrinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroiaSD
So, taxes. Lots and lots of taxes.
We can tax Americans too. Get them the jobs. I mean I am not a huge fan of the H1B visa program where a company brings in a person to do the same job for less and that person will eventually bring in more of their family and eventually extend our social services not to mention the American who did not get the job now may be underemployed or on social services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroiaSD
Because, frankly, we have the money to handle all those things and more to spare. But we'd have to return to our historically-higher taxrates like we had in the past.
I have no problem with a higher tax rate, but I do have a problem with a higher tax rate to solve the problems of non-Americans. I do not see that as my obligation or the Governments obligation. It certainly is not in the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroiaSD
Immigrants, as mentioned, would be a boon to these things, not a minus. Because, to state the obvious, they pay taxes and that's how you get money for these things!
Maybe. Because they could be displacing the Americans. Also I am skeptical of the language skills and education of a lot of these refugees. We have unemployed Americans, lets help THEM.
Then there is Europe. I see that in Europe they have had a problem with these immigrants not getting jobs and becoming lifelong wards of the state. I see things like the 2005 French Riots. I do not see an obligation to sign up for any of this at all, let alone when we still have a lot of Americans to help.
Wrong thinking. You can tax them as well. Thus you have more taxes total and you don't need to raise taxes quite as high to get the same results.
And the jobs? Are made by people coming in- who, btw, are Americans, that's what it means to immigrate, they become Americans. Immigrants are the most likely to start new small businesses. Which make jobs. Which go to born-Americans as well as immigrant-Americans.
This isn't a zero-sum game, it's fairly win-win. Well, the countries losing the people kinda lose out, but on *our* side it's win-win. It's kinda cynical when I put in that way!
Quote:
I have no problem with a higher tax rate, but I do have a problem with a higher tax rate to solve the problems of non-Americans. I do not see that as my obligation or the Governments obligation. It certainly is not in the Constitution.
Again, higher tax rate and immigrants are unrelated- or, not in the way you think. Immigrants pay taxes, they're a plus to economies... compared to native-born. Aside from taxes, they also buy from the economy they're now in. Demand goes up. Demand for businesses means more work for everyone, and the businesses paying more taxes.
"Although many are concerned that immigrants compete against Americans for jobs, the most recent economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans. Based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens (Card 2005), and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate (Ottaviano and Peri 2008; Ottaviano and Peri 2010; Cortes 2008). One reason for this effect is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs; instead, many immigrants complement the work of U.S. employees and increase their productivity. For example, low-skilled immigrant laborers allow U.S.-born farmers, contractors, and craftsmen to expand agricultural production or to build more homes—thereby expanding employment possibilities and incomes for U.S. workers. Another way in which immigrants help U.S. workers is that businesses adjust to new immigrants by opening stores, restaurants, or production facilities to take advantage of the added supply of workers; more workers translate into more business."
So not only are the immigrant-Americans productive and paying in more, but they're literally helping make their born-American neighbors more productive.
Don't buy into the scapegoating. And that's not just 'ahh, all muslims are somehow secretly brainwashed assassins!' stuff, but also 'they'll take our jobs!' or 'we'll have to carry them!' stuff. None of it's true. Someone trying to frame them as an economic menace is still wrong, it's just an attempt to redirect dislike of immigration to something that *sounds* reasonable, an economics argument, but is not actually based on the economics, it's projection. Not only is an immigrant not any more likely to take your job than, say, someone from Tennessee, but data shows you're more likely to compete with them less and more likely to have mutual economic benefit from the immigrant-American.
Quote:
Then there is Europe. I see that in Europe they have had a problem with these immigrants not getting jobs and becoming lifelong wards of the state. I see things like the 2005 French Riots. I do not see an obligation to sign up for any of this at all, let alone when we still have a lot of Americans to help.
Oh, that's a misrepresentation of the situation- and, fortunately, one not so applicable here even with some problems they do have. Europe brought in so many immigrants to help with their economies, and it worked... but then they kept those groups from integrating and made it harder for them to get help when they were in trouble (but note, said immigrant-French communities still gave far more than they 'cost'). Note that the US has had far more immigration in it's history in far larger number- we've got the experience edge here, and do actually let people assimilate. Plus we're just freakin' huge, so it's easy to absorb people in a spread-out fashion and if one area has problems, to go somewhere else where they fit in.
Indeed, immigrants commit less crime than born-Americans. Isn't it 'funny' how a more-peaceful population gets presented as more-violent by people who don't like them? (It's not funny, it's really sad)
Saying "I don't see why we should sign up more when we still have Americans to help," is missing the point- you are bringing in people that help. Economics, crime... you name it. Inventors? That too.
The whole immigrant/jobs situation is often viewed exactly backwards. When I see this, it reads to me akin to:
"Fire chief, we need to bring in more fire fighters!"
"I can't handle these fires and more fire fighters at the same time!"
Because of some people's dislike of immigration, they will try and present problems with them that are not only not problems in most cases, but are in fact helpful for solutions. They'll try and present cases where it's handled badly (but still easily a plus) and then apply it to us, who doesn't even have those specific problems!
It pays a lot to be highly skeptical of negatives said about immigrants and immigration. Most of them, you investigate? The issues poof away and turn out to be either more minor or even a boon.
So don't buy in to the scapegoating. They're literally people trying to convince you to shoot profitable, safer paths in the foot because they don't like someone's color or religion.
Indeed, immigrants commit less crime than born-Americans. Isn't it 'funny' how a more-peaceful population gets presented as more-violent by people who don't like them? (It's not funny, it's really sad)
Indeed, immigrants commit less crime than born-Americans. Isn't it 'funny' how a more-peaceful population gets presented as more-violent by people who don't like them? (It's not funny, it's really sad)
From the article:
Quote:
A central point of an executive order President Trump signed on Wednesday — and a mainstay of his campaign speeches — is the view that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to public safety.
But several studies, over many years, have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United States. And experts say the available evidence does not support the idea that undocumented immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime.
Knowing that 100% of native born Americans do not commit crimes and knowing that by their very nature that undocumented immigrants are committing a crime I have to wonder what else the article is lying about.
The problem is that you think there is an infinite number of jobs. There are not.
We have many Americans that are unemployed or underemployed. We live in a bubble. This is not what most of America is like now. I feel very fortunate.
But there are a lot of young people out there that are unemployed or underemployed. You get them good jobs then we can talk about importing people.
Actually, the entire capitalist system is based on infinitely increasing market growth and job growth.
Whether they are the jobs you want or the jobs people have trained for is something else entirely.
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.
