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.
I think we should set a limit of 300 million souls in this country. We are already there and through birth we should maintain. There should be no immigration.
Nothing further to discuss.
Actually we are well past there... we can't figure out what to do about 12 Million known illegals... you want to go after another 50M on top of that. You're right. Nothing further to discuss. I'm only bothered because I have to share a country with you and with other people like you that are so out of touch with reality and dead dogged stubborn about it... and you get to vote... I'd like to purge this country of every obstructionist, self-identified hard right Conservative. We could get a lot done without the knuckle draggers.
Actually we are well past there... we can't figure out what to do about 12 Million known illegals... you want to go after another 50M on top of that. You're right. Nothing further to discuss. I'm only bothered because I have to share a country with you and with other people like you that are so out of touch with reality and dead dogged stubborn about it... and you get to vote... I'd like to purge this country of every obstructionist, self-identified hard right Conservative. We could get a lot done without the knuckle draggers.
H
Oh we know what to do with the 12 million plus illegals in this country but the powers that be have a vested interest in them and they are backed by the hard core left knuckle draggers, corrupt employers and politicians and ethnocentrics.
Actually we are well past there... we can't figure out what to do about 12 Million known illegals... you want to go after another 50M on top of that. You're right. Nothing further to discuss. I'm only bothered because I have to share a country with you and with other people like you that are so out of touch with reality and dead dogged stubborn about it... and you get to vote... I'd like to purge this country of every obstructionist, self-identified hard right Conservative. We could get a lot done without the knuckle draggers.
H
What is reality in your mind? That we cannot import enough ignorant masses into the country and lower everyone's standard of living fast enough for you?
The reality is that this is a great country but it won't be great anymore after we have 1 billion ignorant humans here that we cannot afford to educate because they don't generate tax revenue because they have no job skills. It's like an upside down ponzie scheme.
FYI, I'm a democrat. That doesn't make me a liberal nor a conservative. I live in the real world where apparently you do not. We cannot create enough jobs for the people we have so we should just automatically make 60 million illegals LEGAL? I say we send them right back where they came from and they can get in line behind everyone else.
Unless you have something against the law of our land and that says that it is ILLEGAL to walk across the border and squat in this country.
Every illegal immigrant claims they are "hard working people". I don't think having 9 babies and relying on the government for everything is hard working.
Another thread informs me that 33.3% of Americans are on some kind of Federal Aid. Well under Clinton that was capped at 5 years. Way I see it, between unemployment being capped at 99 weeks and Welfare capped at 5 years. Mom and Dad are the only thing keeping the Middle Class together. The housing crash hasn't helped because that's where Mom and Dad got ALL their wealth. I'm really surprised I have to tell anyone this. The kind of denial it must take to look at the everyday reality of life in America post Bush and think that this is all Obama's fault and that replacing him with Romney will somehow bring us back to better times...H
Dude, you are so far off topic its not funny. To correct your claims though is rather easy. TANF is limited to a 5 year lifetime cap....BUT... not for everybody, To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half of the states have done so. So up to 20% of those receiving it can remain on it for however long the state itself says you can or until they decide you make to much and are removed from it.
Unemployment used to be capped at no more than 26 weeks of 1 year, and must be re-applied for after that initial year.
Even MLK believed people should be not be judged by the color of their skin.
It isn't that I'm advocating discrimination in general principle. I see discrimination as useful in the same way a boycott is useful. If you disagree with the CEO of Chic-fil-a on his stance on gay-marriage, you can boycott his business. But because of the law, it is illegal for you not to hire him, or not to rent your property to him, if he qualifies. If you do, then he could sue you for millions of dollars.
Open-immigration without the ability to discriminate, makes it impossible to prevent culturally incompatible people from coming to this country. Because they will basically be guaranteed jobs and housing. And while that might sound like a "limit to immigration", it isn't. But it is a statement to people who might immigrate, that if you come to America, you need to become an American, or you won't be able to stay.
Quote:
A state in the US is a Federated State, many together form a territorial and constitutional federal union. Before the 14th amendment? States were unable to regulate their own immigration when the Articles of Confederation where adopted in 1777.
First, you seem to misunderstand the difference between immigration and naturalization. They are not the same thing. Second, the articles of confederation didn't regulate immigration or naturalization. And third, the United States constitution itself does not regulate immigration, only naturalization.
Article 1 section 8 says "The Congress shall have the power. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
Since naturalization is citizenship, it only means that Congress has the power to set rules on who is allowed to become a citizen. It does not mean Congress has the power to say who comes to this country as non-citizens(immigrants). Which is why for the first 40 years this country existed, the federal government didn't even have records of the people who were coming into this country(who weren't/didn't become citizens), outside of census records. It wasn't until the Supreme Court decided that since the Congress sets the rules of naturalization, that they should also set the rules for immigration, that the federal government even decided that it should begin regulating immigration. But in my view, that Supreme Court case was simply wrong.
This is the case, it is quite an interesting read, and it certainly makes a very compelling case. But while I agree with its observations, I disagree with its prescription.
Its argument is that, the law of the state of California was structured in a way that could easily lead to corruption by immigrant officials, and that if any harm was done to the reputation of the United States by said law, it could potentially lead us to war or other conflict with other nations, and if that were to happen, that it won't only be the people of California who go to war, but the entire nation.
While the argument seems well-written and well thought-out... If you really think about it, the entire argument truly rests upon the idea that, if a state has laws that might **** off another country, then the federal government has the authority to overturn their laws. Similar to if a person in this country makes a movie that pisses off Muslims, that the federal government should have to power to squelch freedom of speech, otherwise one person might bring us to war.
Moreover, the assumption is made that California was the only way to get into this country, or that there weren't ways to make sure California allowed a "freedom of travel" arrangement regulated on a federal government level, that didn't require a complete usurpation of all immigration powers by the federal government.
And lastly, I find it a little ironic when we look back at history. That the Supreme Court cases that eventually allowed the federal take-over of immigration, were all through attempts to allow more immigration, which certain states were trying to limit. Yet, when we go forward in time, the whole situation has been flipped on its head. The states that were "so wrongly restricting immigration" that it became necessary for the federal government to do something about it(New York and California), are now the states who actually are trying to have more immigration but are being prevented from doing so by the federal government.
And lastly, most of the Supreme Court cases which allowed for the federal takeover of immigration were focused on Asians. And in the aftermath of those cases, it has actually become much more difficult for Asians to come to this country, not easier.
So yes, I find the whole situation to be pretty ridiculous. If you take out the the false assumption that "the federal government does everything right", and "the states are all corrupt", it becomes pretty clear that the system has not made anyone better off.
Quote:
Now you are limiting the free movement of people you so deeply wanted in prior comments. There is no guarantee that these immigrants would stay within the state that asked for them.
My goal is to set a policy that would allow almost complete open immigration. There obviously has to be certain limitations, such as criminals, people with contagious diseases, and also people who are very culturally incompatible/political radicals. As the goal was to have open immigration that did no harm.
If you take Muslims for instance, the vast majority of Muslims could come to the United States tomorrow as non-citizens, if we had no welfare systems in place. And the vast majority of them would most likely assimilate just fine into western culture/values over time. There are maybe 5-10% of the Muslim population that are basically radicals, who would be happy with imposing Sharia law and forcing women to wearing head scarves and other oppressive measures. It is similar to Christians in this country. Of the so-called "Christians" in the United States, the vast majority could move to a Muslim country and get along just fine. You have a small group of "evangelicals" and other hardcore groups, that simply wouldn't be able to get along. And there is no reason for those types of people to have easy access to other countries.
The idea of state-level immigration regulation, is not so much that I think the states in general should be regulating immigration. But rather, I think it a great way to balance immigration. If one state is restricting immigration for bad reasons, then they will suffer for it, as other states become increasingly better off. This form of state "competition" works the same as all forms of competition, it punishes the ones who are making bad decisions, and rewards the ones who are making good decisions. In the end, it helps us all to make the good decisions. Competition is a wonderful thing.
Quote:
You can't have open immigration based on your theory, it still wouldn't work as the citizen would be giving up their guaranteed rights of the USC.
What rights exactly? Do you mean welfare? Do you mean anti-discrimination laws? What rights are we talking about here?
Moreover, did the people in this country always have those "rights" that you are talking about? What part of the constitution guarantees people these "rights" that I'm supposedly taking away?
I'll give you a hint, practically every piece of social welfare legislation on the books, is justified through the interstate commerce clause. Look it up.
That includes healthcare, food stamps, social security, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, you name it. Do you really think that those were the intentions of the interstate commerce clause when the framers created it?
Quote:
The first act after the USC was in 1790, limited to immigrants who were "free white men and of good moral character" and limited the right of citizenship, it did not descend to persons whose fathers had never been resident in the United States.
Wrong. It did not limit "immigrants" to free white men of good moral character. It limited citizenship to free white men. It was a naturalization act, not an immigration act. Up until basically 1890, the federal government had no control over immigration, only naturalization(citizenship).
Section 1 of the naturalization act states..... "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise:"
Basically, there was no limit on non-whites from coming to or living in the United States, they just couldn't become citizens. Later on of course many of the laws were either changed or clarified, usually on the basis of "what is white anyway?"
Quote:
H2B workers? What about H2A workers? They both can apply for a CoS, but there is no guarantee they will receive it.
They are allowed to come do to the fact that they themselves are being given the opportunity to better their economic lives, its the US giving to the world generosity. What makes you think that by allowing them to stay they will keep their money here?
It is only logical that if a person who was working here was allowed to live here, they would most likely live here, and bring their family here. If they brought their family here, the money they made would most likely stay here, instead of being pulled out of this country and spent elsewhere.
The question is, why would you give a person the right to work here, but not live here?
The answer is simple. When they work here, it makes us better off. But if they live here, they and their family will be guaranteed certain social benefits that will increase government spending by such an amount that wouldn't be offset by their own incomes.
Quote:
Importing low wage workers actually lowers the GDP, so yes on a macro level they do harm the US.
First, this simply isn't true, and every economist will tell you the same thing, immigrants increase our GDP not lower it. Secondly, even if it was true, what would it mean?
A GDP is the total value of all goods and services sold in this country over a year, denominated in US dollars. GDP is not the equivalent of buying power, nor does it equate to standard of living. In fact, if you were to look at GDP of individual states in this country vs buying power/standard of living. The states with the most buying power vs average income, are in the Midwest and south. While the states with the worst buying power vs average income are the states with the highest per-capita GDP's.
So even if immigrants actually lowered our GDP, it doesn't mean we would be worse off. Because the price of goods would go down, and it would make us much more competitive in the world-wide market(more jobs not less).
Quote:
The micro level is much more harming as it increases the tax burden on everybody. I operate a Tree Company and don't employ any immigrants, so it is possible to be done. My reputation keeps me working, my company profit reduction was from the recession. That cheaper landscape job just reduced their property value not to mention that they will have added expenses repairing the crap job done by that cheaper company due to the shortcuts taken to achieve that cheaper price. Just because its cheap doesn't free up money for that purchaser.
You are conflating two ideas. It is true, that cheaper can many times mean lower quality. But higher prices doesn't guarantee higher quality either. Nor does immigrant labor mean high or low quality. The only thing you have said with any substance is that, you work in an industry that would be affected by more immigration. Basically, with more immigration, you could either end up out of a job, or having to take a pay cut. And so on that micro level, your standard of living could be "negatively affected" by more immigration.
But on the other hand, everyone else would be able to get their landscaping done even cheaper. Leaving even more money in their own pockets. And even if you argue that immigrants would end up lowering wages across the board, it still doesn't mean there would be any reduction in relative buying power of goods and services. And more likely than not, it would result in more goods and services being produced, at lower costs, which would allow us to more easily export our goods to the world.
In the end, your argument is not about the ills of illegal immigration on society. You are really arguing for a form of protectionism placed on your industry for your own benefit. Basically, you want the government to put in place policies to guarantee you won't lose your job, even if it is at the expense of everyone else. Which is also what corporations do when they go to the government looking for subsidies and tax breaks. As the saying used to be "Whatever is good for General Motors, is good for America".
I simply disagree with that line of thinking.
As for the "tax burden". My argument was basically to get rid of everything the government currently does with our taxes. The only real thing the federal government must provide, is a national defense. The cost of that defense doesn't go up because of more immigration, it stays the same, and so the price per person should actually go down and not up with more people here. Beyond that, you have the post office, which is supposed to pay for itself. Even the interstate highways aren't technically in the constitution, only the establishment of "post roads". The interstates are justified through the interstate commerce clause, and largely wouldn't go up in price with more people living here.
So with my plan, immigrants don't increase anyone's tax burden. And if there is any sort of tax burden, it would be on the local/state level, not the national level. And so as I said before, immigration could then fall on the shoulders of individual states, not the federal government. Which I think is simply a much better system than what we have now.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-25-2012 at 05:55 PM..
First, you seem to misunderstand the difference between immigration and naturalization. They are not the same thing. Second, the articles of confederation didn't regulate immigration or naturalization. And third, the United States constitution itself does not regulate immigration, only naturalization.
Actually the act of 1798 registered white immigrants to establish date of initial residency. The articles of Confederation due limit immigration (restricted the freedom of movement), Article 4: excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice. They could not (em)migrate into said colony (prior to the AoC they would be taken to the border of which the entered) or said state (after the AoC they would be taken to the border of which they entered). From 1798 a Landing Report was required of all aliens, this later evolved into Ellis Island and the like, and eventually into passports worldwide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Article 1 section 8 says "The Congress shall have the power. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
Since naturalization is citizenship, it only means that Congress has the power to set rules on who is allowed to become a citizen. It does not mean Congress has the power to say who comes to this country as non-citizens(immigrants). Which is why for the first 40 years this country existed, the federal government didn't even have records of the people who were coming into this country(who weren't/didn't become citizens), outside of census records. It wasn't until the Supreme Court decided that since the Congress sets the rules of naturalization, that they should also set the rules for immigration, that the federal government even decided that it should begin regulating immigration. But in my view, that Supreme Court case was simply wrong.
Look above, the 1798 act registered white immigrants. There were records through ship manifests of who entered and who were not allowed (Landing Reports). The Supreme court recognized back in 1812 that:
Quote:
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.
This consent may be either express or implied. In the latter case it is less determinate, exposed more to the uncertainties of construction, but if understood, not less obligatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
This is the case, it is quite an interesting read, and it certainly makes a very compelling case. But while I agree with its observations, I disagree with its prescription.
Its argument is that, the law of the state of California was structured in a way that could easily lead to corruption by immigrant officials, and that if any harm was done to the reputation of the United States by said law, it could potentially lead us to war or other conflict with other nations, and if that were to happen, that it won't only be the people of California who go to war, but the entire nation.
While the argument seems well-written and well thought-out... If you really think about it, the entire argument truly rests upon the idea that, if a state has laws that might **** off another country, then the federal government has the authority to overturn their laws. Similar to if a person in this country makes a movie that pisses off Muslims, that the federal government should have to power to squelch freedom of speech, otherwise one person might bring us to war.
Moreover, the assumption is made that California was the only way to get into this country, or that there weren't ways to make sure California allowed a "freedom of travel" arrangement regulated on a federal government level, that didn't require a complete usurpation of all immigration powers by the federal government.
Had California had laws similar to NY or LA there would have been no case. The issue was simply that CA's statute allowed for the commissioner to choose who was to be charged based on the "satisfying of himself". The case was limited only to CA and forced the changing of the statute. Nothing else can be discerned from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And lastly, most of the Supreme Court cases which allowed for the federal takeover of immigration were focused on Asians. And in the aftermath of those cases, it has actually become much more difficult for Asians to come to this country, not easier.
You are completely dismissing the Treaty of Tientsin and the Burlingame Treaty, which is what brought about the Page Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
So yes, I find the whole situation to be pretty ridiculous. If you take out the the false assumption that "the federal government does everything right", and "the states are all corrupt", it becomes pretty clear that the system has not made anyone better off.
The system (immigration) isn't suppose to make anybody better-off. It is limiting for the sole reason to protect those already here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
My goal is to set a policy that would allow almost complete open immigration. There obviously has to be certain limitations, such as criminals, people with contagious diseases, and also people who are very culturally incompatible/political radicals. As the goal was to have open immigration that did no harm.
There is no possible way that open-immigration doesn't do harm. Resources are not finite. Overpopulation poses major issues. The land has a carrying capacity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The idea of state-level immigration regulation, is not so much that I think the states in general should be regulating immigration. But rather, I think it a great way to balance immigration. If one state is restricting immigration for bad reasons, then they will suffer for it, as other states become increasingly better off. This form of state "competition" works the same as all forms of competition, it punishes the ones who are making bad decisions, and rewards the ones who are making good decisions. In the end, it helps us all to make the good decisions. Competition is a wonderful thing.
Your logic is based on assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
What rights exactly? Do you mean welfare? Do you mean anti-discrimination laws? What rights are we talking about here?
Welfare a right? Anti-discrimiantion laws rights? Do you not understand the USC? Do you not know what positive and negative rights are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Moreover, did the people in this country always have those "rights" that you are talking about? What part of the constitution guarantees people these "rights" that I'm supposedly taking away?
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I'll give you a hint, practically every piece of social welfare legislation on the books, is justified through the interstate commerce clause. Look it up.
That includes healthcare, food stamps, social security, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, you name it. Do you really think that those were the intentions of the interstate commerce clause when the framers created it?
How about providing a link. And here I thought it was funded from the general revenue by way of redistributive taxation. No Interstate Commerce Clause needed. Social Security is a mandated insurance program. Obamacare is a tax (one that should be abolished).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Wrong. It did not limit "immigrants" to free white men of good moral character. It limited citizenship to free white men. It was a naturalization act, not an immigration act. Up until basically 1890, the federal government had no control over immigration, only naturalization(citizenship).
Again look to the Schooner Exchange of 1812. Immigrants had to have the permission of their own Gov't to leave their home nation in order to goto America.
Section 1 of the naturalization act states..... "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise:"
Basically, there was no limit on non-whites from coming to or living in the United States, they just couldn't become citizens. Later on of course many of the laws were either changed or clarified, usually on the basis of "what is white anyway?"
Most were already here in other territories not managed by the original 13 states. As our territory grew we incorporated many of them. The Louisiana Purchase comes to mind along with the annexation of the Oregon Territories (British) and Mexican Territories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
It is only logical that if a person who was working here was allowed to live here, they would most likely live here, and bring their family here. If they brought their family here, the money they made would most likely stay here, instead of being pulled out of this country and spent elsewhere.
Assumption They still have extended family and property that they own in their home nations. You also assume they want more than the simple ability to make money. A small portion may wish to relocate to here permanently, but by no means due the majority want to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The question is, why would you give a person the right to work here, but not live here?
Aren't they living here while they work here? They can apply to bring their family with them, even on H visas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The answer is simple. When they work here, it makes us better off. But if they live here, they and their family will be guaranteed certain social benefits that will increase government spending by such an amount that wouldn't be offset by their own incomes.
Assumption. When low skilled workers work here they better themselves, if they bring their family, the taxpayers are burdened. H visas have limited tax with holdings. Not the same with holdings as citizens and residents. They shouldn't be guaranteed any social benefits, if they bring their school age children they should pay tuition for them, as H2A visas are suppose to be housed by the person using them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
First, this simply isn't true, and every economist will tell you the same thing, immigrants increase our GDP not lower it. Secondly, even if it was true, what would it mean?
Funny, every economist will tell you that low skilled workers are a burden on the US, even the Progressive Paul Krugman admits that. They will also tell you the low skilled immigrants lower the US GDP by roughly 1%. It is only high skilled immigrants that aren't a burden, your straw man incorporates all immigrants to eek out a net positive to the US, without high skilled immigrants, low skilled immigrants would be a major burden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
A GDP is the total value of all goods and services sold in this country over a year, denominated in US dollars. GDP is not the equivalent of buying power, nor does it equate to standard of living. In fact, if you were to look at GDP of individual states in this country vs buying power/standard of living. The states with the most buying power vs average income, are in the Midwest and south. While the states with the worst buying power vs average income are the states with the highest per-capita GDP's.
So even if immigrants actually lowered our GDP, it doesn't mean we would be worse off. Because the price of goods would go down, and it would make us much more competitive in the world-wide market(more jobs not less).
Assumption. Would you have us race to the bottom to compete with China and India?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You are conflating two ideas. It is true, that cheaper can many times mean lower quality. But higher prices doesn't guarantee higher quality either. Nor does immigrant labor mean high or low quality. The only thing you have said with any substance is that, you work in an industry that would be affected by more immigration. Basically, with more immigration, you could either end up out of a job, or having to take a pay cut. And so on that micro level, your standard of living could be "negatively affected" by more immigration.
Not just mine, but everybody who would be forced to compete with these lower paid workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
But on the other hand, everyone else would be able to get their landscaping done even cheaper. Leaving even more money in their own pockets. And even if you argue that immigrants would end up lowering wages across the board, it still doesn't mean there would be any reduction in relative buying power of goods and services. And more likely than not, it would result in more goods and services being produced, at lower costs, which would allow us to more easily export our goods to the world.
Assumption by you yet again. It may look good in theory, but that is all it is, theory, no guaranteed proof that the outcome will be as you claim. The material costs to produce a product would not change, but actually increase due to demand, thus your theory has been negated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
In the end, your argument is not about the ills of illegal immigration on society. You are really arguing for a form of protectionism placed on your industry for your own benefit. Basically, you want the government to put in place policies to guarantee you won't lose your job, even if it is at the expense of everyone else. Which is also what corporations do when they go to the government looking for subsidies and tax breaks. As the saying used to be "Whatever is good for General Motors, is good for America".
Protectionism for my own industry? NO...Protectionism for the citizens of this nation. Your assumed theory is still fatally flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I simply disagree with that line of thinking.
I don't care that you disagree, as I disagree with your assumed theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As for the "tax burden". My argument was basically to get rid of everything the government currently does with our taxes. The only real thing the federal government must provide, is a national defense. The cost of that defense doesn't go up because of more immigration, it stays the same, and so the price per person should actually go down and not up with more people here. Beyond that, you have the post office, which is supposed to pay for itself. Even the interstate highways aren't technically in the constitution, only the establishment of "post roads". The interstates are justified through the interstate commerce clause, and largely wouldn't go up in price with more people living here.
You don't understand the General Welfare Clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
So with my plan, immigrants don't increase anyone's tax burden. And if there is any sort of tax burden, it would be on the local/state level, not the national level. And so as I said before, immigration could then fall on the shoulders of individual states, not the federal government. Which I think is simply a much better system than what we have now.
So it would be better to tax individuals locally instead of federally, and the only tax that the feds should receive would be for the US military. You admit previously: that If you have a system where citizens are forced to subsidize the educations of immigrants, then the costs of immigration will heavily burden American citizens. And if open-immigration places a burden on Americans, then it simply won't work.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-25-2012 at 10:06 PM..
Keep in mind, this isn't only about immigration policy itself, the real goal is for you to create a new US Government from scratch, which could hypothetically allow everyone in the entire world to move to the US tomorrow(if they wanted to come), which wouldn't destroy our quality of life.
Is it possible, and how would you do it?
.
When poor foreigners talk about wanting to move to America what they want is access to American institutions, political stability, property rights, safety and infrastructure and the prosperity that these uniquely American cultural elements allow.
I don't think there's any way to achieve your goal without creating massive overcrowding and basically destroying the very system these people desire to live in.
Look at the ruinous political divisiveness that has resulted since non-Western immigration was first opened up by the 1965 immigration act. The country has literally been split in half... The next stage will be total balkanized fragmentation which will reduce America to a mess of conflicting racial, tribal and political interests. America's strength has always been it's relative unity(e pluribus unum), and without this our superpower status instantly evaporates(happening as we type).
I think the only way to really achieve the goal you suggest would be to "Americanize the world". Basically bring American institutions to the people, instead of having all the world's poor come to America.
Work with the UN to establish the type of institutions in each country that have proven successful in America, ie: rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech, free elections etc etc. You could appoint American politicians as regional governor/advisors until people learned how to govern themselves.
All we have to do is enforce the laws already on the books.
One of the main purposes of immigration laws is to not let in too many poor people to burden American taxpayers. When both political parties refuse to enforce the immigration laws (for different reasons) we have problems like we do now. If we all of a sudden decide we need more uneducated people in this country to do work that doesn't require an education, then we just need to increase the amount we let in legally. Only legal immigrants/workers should be entitled to American benefits.
Now about those Visa overstays which is another problem nobody ever talks about, the federal government is inept in that enforcement and those aren't necessarily poor people, either... if they come to this country to take advantage of our education on student visas and then just disappear, jail time, deportation, never enter the country again.
"...between 4 million and 5 million people in the U.S. have overstayed their visas."
Lets just pretend hypothetically that you brought an uneducated/unskilled person into this country. Why does it matter? Be as specific as you possibly can.
Because there are no jobs for many unskilled people right now. An educated, unskilled person from Guatemala most likely does not speak English. Any job they can get will likely pay very little. The cost of living here is higher than in Guatemala. In all probability the unskilled Guatemalan cannot earn enough to afford to pay for most of their basic living costs. Hence the person will most likely have to demand American tax dollars to continue doing so or they they will have to demand the "right" to allow us to let him live in substandard and potentially dangerous housing.
Why the hell should Americans be forced to work harder to life potentially easier for an unskilled Guatemalan national? Why should let our living standards fall to make life easier for a foreigner with no claim on this country? Why have so many illegal nitwits convinced themselves that Americans owe them something?
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.
Dude, you are so far off topic its not funny. To correct your claims though is rather easy. TANF is limited to a 5 year lifetime cap....BUT... not for everybody, To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half of the states have done so. So up to 20% of those receiving it can remain on it for however long the state itself says you can or until they decide you make to much and are removed from it.
