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.
After having read your comment, your long responses are thought out; I agree with some and disagree with parts. For instance, your Aunt does think in a way that is counter-intuitive to her desires, which is why I brought up the fact that what you claim about Conservatives was wrong earlier. Conservatives are much more in line with your comment above - the idea of contract foreign domestic helpers (which we already have in place with our immigration laws and visas, the issue we have are the quantity limits per year of issued visas). Hong Kong (my brother-in-law actually lives there and has 2 foreign domestics living at his home to help with his kids and his wife) uses something like the old system of indentured servitude and only allows for a contract with no chance of future residency status for having lived within the country (unlike the US which does allow for a CoS to resident status and eventually citizenship). The indentured servant must re-apply for a new 2 year contract or leave, it is contracted labor, not ones own immigration choice, they are not "ordinary residents". There are also "maid services" in Hong Kong, mostly for those that can't qualify for the Domestic Helpers due to monthly incomes not meeting the requirements, etc for which they are paid a lower wage then if they were able to contract with the entirety of the Hong Kong populace, the rich get cheaper labor simply because they are rich; the rich get richer, the poor get poorer due to unfair competition. Because of this, there is resentment among the populace for foreign domestic helpers. This would be typical of your above scenario for people to have to migrate to jobs outside of their Town, City, State, Country. THE argument against FDH's also incurs an increased labor supply As I mentioned prior, States should not have control over any immigration from foreign states, as you even posted a court case stating why.
Obviously we have a difference of opinion when it comes to dealing with social and economic issues. So before this conversation proceeds any further, I would like you to watch these videos, and give me a general summary of each video. Then give me your opinion about each video, and what should be done about the situation.
As I mentioned prior, States should not have control over any immigration from foreign states, as you even posted a court case stating why.
I disagree with you, and I think you misunderstand what I'm saying, so let me explain both what happened before 1875 and after 1875.
Before 1875, the federal government only set naturalization laws, which is the path to citizenship. The federal government did not regulate who was actually coming into the country from foreign nations, but did require a certain amount of record-keeping to verify the date of entry of immigrants. Since the process of naturalization required a certain amount of years of continuous residency in the United States, the federal government needed to be able to verify the date of entry of the immigrants before giving them citizenship. But the federal government did not prohibit anyone from coming into the country, if you wanted to come to the United States pre-1875, the only permission you needed to come here, was from one of the states in this country.
The problem arose not because California was letting people immigrate to the United States. It came about because California was turning away immigrants who were Chinese, or only allowing them to immigrate if they could pay a certain amount of money as a "bond". This prompted the federal government to decide that the states shouldn't regulate immigration based on two points.
1) That California having the ability to turn away immigrants from foreign nations, would indirectly put restrictions on foreign trade. And since the federal government regulates(makes regular) trade with foreign nations. Then California's immigration laws would interfere with foreign trade.
2) That California's basically racist immigration policies could stir resentment between California and China. And since California cannot enter into diplomatic relations with China. Whatever resentment there is between California and China, ends up having to be settled with between China and the US government. And potentially at the time, it could have led to a war or blockade of trade between the United States and China, affecting all Americans, not just Californians.
So what was the actual change between the old way and the new way? The only real difference, is that the federal government now issues visa's and allows residency to immigrants(which used to be something only the states did), and denies that ability to the states. The process of naturalization itself is still effectively the same.
So when we look at the situation. I will agree that because of those issues, that the federal government did need to get more involved in immigration. There needed to be federal VISA's, which guaranteed the right of travel to foreigners into the United States. Which is necessary to allow the federal government to regulate trade between the United States and foreign countries. And the federal government preventing the individual states from completely banning certain classes of immigrants, was also a good thing. But what I disagree with, is not that the federal government can allow people in, its that it stripped away the power of the states to allow people in.
Take for instance the so-called "sanctuary cities". According to federal immigration policy, there cannot actually be such a thing as a sanctuary city. Either the federal government says you can live here, or you cannot live here. That is the current rule.
Under my plan, the federal government would have exactly the same powers as they currently have, in terms of giving permission to people in other countries to immigrate into this country. The only change, would be that the states themselves could also give "state visa's", which would allow immigrants to come into that state only. Which means that California could actually go to a sanctuary city, and give every person in that city a California VISA or residency card. And it would be completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government.
My plan would allow for all the immigration we already have, plus would allow for even more immigration. But would only allow immigrants to live in the states that let them in.
And my system would work flawlessly, except for one issue. Birthright citizenship. Because under my plan, whether or not California allows in immigrants or not, doesn't directly affect any other state. Unless immigration creates more citizens, because citizens are guaranteed right of travel between the states in this country. So the only way my plan would actually work, is to prevent any sort of citizenship that bypasses federal naturalization laws(IE birthright citizenship).
My system not only allows for more potential immigration, it also helps direct the immigration to where it is wanted/needed. And it also helps to alleviate the conflict in this country between individual states, and between various political factions. Instead of North Dakota's two senators having the same relative power as California's two senators in regards to a one-size-fits-all immigration policy. The only authority North Dakota would have over California, would not be in preventing California from allowing more immigration. But only that North Dakota could vote to restrict only federal immigration and naturalization, so that the flood of immigrants coming into California, wouldn't be allowed to come to North Dakota unless they were either handed an actual federal VISA, or given citizenship. And without a federal VISA or citizenship, those immigrants aren't guaranteed any social benefits either, unless California provides them those benefits, out of their own pockets. It is simply a win-win situation from all sides.
Quote:
You say "Well, I'm not forcing anyone. But, many people will want to immigrate for better opportunity", I see it as a perception discrepancy, I say, "they will be forced to immigrate for survival." There are a couple other re-wordings I can use in other parts of your comment, but I think you get the picture.
I think portraying it as they are being forced to immigrate for survival, is a little exaggerated. People don't leave Iowa farms to move to New York city for "survival". They move for a better life. They move for better access to services and amenities. Mexicans who move to the United States aren't going to die if they stay in Mexico. They just don't have as many opportunities in Mexico.
The average net income of a construction worker in Mexico is about $342 a month, or $4104 a year(which is not the lowest paying job in Mexico btw). If you worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that would be the equivalent of $1.97 an hour. Mexico's cost of living is lower than the United States, and so the purchasing power is about 50% higher than it is here. So $4104 a year is the equivalent of $6156 a year in the United States. Or $2.96 an hour.
Basically, a Mexican construction worker in Mexico is paid $2.96 an hour in relative US dollars. If a Mexican construction worker comes to the United States and makes even minimum wage, he will make almost 2.5 times as much as he made in Mexico. It would be the equivalent of a person making minimum wage in this country, jumping up to making $17.69 an hour.
But, minimum wage isn't even the most appropriate pricing point for construction workers. For instance, take roofers.
If you wanted your roof done, you'll need to buy the shingles. One "square" of shingles is 100 sqft. Good roofers can put up "10 squares" a day. The cost of an average square of shingles is about $70-$100. For tear down and replace, you are looking at about an additional $200 per square. So $300 per square. A house with 2,000 sqft inside, might have 3,000 sqft of roof. So 30 square at $300 a square, about $9k for a roof job.
Of the $200 in tear down and replace, about 2/5ths is tear down and cleanup, and 3/5ths is shingle installation, so about $120 a square in pure labor for just shingle install. But that is the contractor cost. The contractor probably only pays his subcontractors about $50-$70 a square. And you can hire an illegal immigrant in Oklahoma city for just $15 a square for install, and he can do 10 square a day. Which is about $150 a day, or $18.75 an hour in US dollars. If he could do that for 40 hours a week. It would be the equivalent of making 6.33 times what he made in Mexico for the same work. So that would be the equivalent of a person making minimum wage here, suddenly making $45.92 an hour, cash money, no taxes.
Basically, could a person survive in Iowa making $7.25 an hour? Sure. But why would he stay in Iowa if there are jobs in say New York, doing the same work, paying $45.92 an hour? You would have to be a complete idiot to want to stay in Iowa rather than move to New York if that was the situation. And I would bet that if France was offering low-skill construction jobs right now, paying $46 an hour, that there would be tons of Americans trying to sneak into France. And it has absolutely nothing to do with "survival", it has to do with simply living a better life, and getting paid what you're worth.
Take for instance those Filipino girls who work as foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong. Are they living in Hong Kong just to "Survive"? No, they could survive in the Philippines. They just would be very poor, and their children would be very poor.
They might only get paid $450 a month($5400 a year), and work 50+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Which would be about $2 an hour. But, if that wasn't a hell of a lot more than what they would be paid in the Philippines, they wouldn't be FDH's in Hong Kong. No one is forcing them, it is their choice. It may not be a satisfactory choice to some, but to others it is a wonderful opportunity.
I mean, something like half the people in the entire world live off $1 a day. Those poor FDH's in Hong Kong make about $15 a day. In Kenya, middle-class is basically $5 a day. An FDH in Hong Kong sending all her money to their family in Kenya, would basically make that family rich in comparison to almost everyone else in Kenya. But of course Kenyans aren't allowed to be FDH's in Hong Kong. Neither are foreigners allowed to go into that kind of contract labor in the United States, because rights groups call it a "subtle form of slavery".
And while we pat our backs as we congratulate ourselves for not "exploiting the foreign poor", those people in those other countries who are living malnourished and in squalid conditions, can only dream of coming here and working for $15 a day.
Congratulations.
PS : I really want to hire a live-in maid for $450 a month or less. Someone needs to petition the government to let me bring in some really destitute foreigner that knows how to cook good ethnic food, to come be my house maid. Thanks for your help.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-06-2012 at 06:47 AM..
And while we pat our backs as we congratulate ourselves for not "exploiting the foreign poor", those people in those other countries who are living malnourished and in squalid conditions, can only dream of coming here and working for $15 a day.
Congratulations.
PS : I really want to hire a live-in maid for $450 a month or less. Someone needs to petition the government to let me bring in some really destitute foreigner that knows how to cook good ethnic food, to come be my house maid. Thanks for your help.
I really want evil cheap creeps who want slave labor to leave this country.
Someone needs to petition the government to deport would be slave owners. Middle class Americans are not responsible for the world's poor. People who want to demolist our labor laws, decimate our middle class and turn this country into a third world hellhole are psychopaths.
Obviously we have a difference of opinion when it comes to dealing with social and economic issues.
Yes we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I disagree with you, and I think you misunderstand what I'm saying, so let me explain both what happened before 1875 and after 1875.
Before 1875, the federal government only set naturalization laws, which is the path to citizenship. The federal government did not regulate who was actually coming into the country from foreign nations, but did require a certain amount of record-keeping to verify the date of entry of immigrants. Since the process of naturalization required a certain amount of years of continuous residency in the United States, the federal government needed to be able to verify the date of entry of the immigrants before giving them citizenship. But the federal government did not prohibit anyone from coming into the country, if you wanted to come to the United States pre-1875, the only permission you needed to come here, was from one of the states in this country.
After the US Constitution, the US had relatively free immigration up until 1819 with the passage of the Steerage Act
Quote:
[SIZE=1]This statute gave the federal government information on immigration by requiring that all vessels reaching American shores deliver passenger lists to customs officials, who were required to send copies to the U.S. State Department, which, in turn, submitted the lists to Congress. The Steerage Act also limited the numbers of passengers on arriving and departing ships.[/SIZE]
Other Federal statutes that limited immigration restrictions were the Treaty of Tientsin (1858) and the Burlingame Treaty (1868). The USC also regulates immigration, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3:
Quote:
the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes."
Not to mention the Aliens Acts of 1798 which allowed for deportation of immigrants. The States were allowed to regulate their residents, and migrants. They weren't allowed to regulate immigration other than to charge a fee for paupers, etc. from the ships captain to cover the costs of public charges that arrived on his ship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The problem arose not because California was letting people immigrate to the United States. It came about because California was turning away immigrants who were Chinese, or only allowing them to immigrate if they could pay a certain amount of money as a "bond". This prompted the federal government to decide that the states shouldn't regulate immigration based on two points.
1) That California having the ability to turn away immigrants from foreign nations, would indirectly put restrictions on foreign trade. And since the federal government regulates(makes regular) trade with foreign nations. Then California's immigration laws would interfere with foreign trade.
2) That California's basically racist immigration policies could stir resentment between California and China. And since California cannot enter into diplomatic relations with China. Whatever resentment there is between California and China, ends up having to be settled with between China and the US government. And potentially at the time, it could have led to a war or blockade of trade between the United States and China, affecting all Americans, not just Californians.
1) USC; Article 1, Section 8, clause 3.
2) Had CA had a policy like that of NY, then there would have been no issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
So what was the actual change between the old way and the new way? The only real difference, is that the federal government now issues visa's and allows residency to immigrants(which used to be something only the states did), and denies that ability to the states. The process of naturalization itself is still effectively the same.
The States never had control of immigration into their State, they were only able to regulate residency, they had to accept any emigrant but placed a head fee on vagabonds and paupers due to the foreign nation sending them and the now US State having to deal with their public charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
So when we look at the situation. I will agree that because of those issues, that the federal government did need to get more involved in immigration. There needed to be federal VISA's, which guaranteed the right of travel to foreigners into the United States. Which is necessary to allow the federal government to regulate trade between the United States and foreign countries. And the federal government preventing the individual states from completely banning certain classes of immigrants, was also a good thing. But what I disagree with, is not that the federal government can allow people in, its that it stripped away the power of the states to allow people in.
The States lost that power in the USC; A1S8C3. The States have only been allowed to regulate their residency and must assume anybody within the US, or arriving at one of their ports, is here, in essence, as a new resident of the State and the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Take for instance the so-called "sanctuary cities". According to federal immigration policy, there cannot actually be such a thing as a sanctuary city. Either the federal government says you can live here, or you cannot live here. That is the current rule.
I agree, but the issue is the inability of the State itself to determine a persons legality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Under my plan, the federal government would have exactly the same powers as they currently have, in terms of giving permission to people in other countries to immigrate into this country. The only change, would be that the states themselves could also give "state visa's", which would allow immigrants to come into that state only. Which means that California could actually go to a sanctuary city, and give every person in that city a California VISA or residency card. And it would be completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I would prefer the State being allowed to verify a persons status via a database that the Feds have and use. The States could then deny illegals any and all entitlements and benefits that a State itself allows its residents. The BRC of the 14th would also then be denied to children born of illegals simply due to the fact that they are not legally residing within the State or within the US. These children are born with their parents nationality and are only required to have their birth documents submitted to their Consul to attain their Ctizenship of their parents home nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
My plan would allow for all the immigration we already have, plus would allow for even more immigration. But would only allow immigrants to live in the states that let them in.
Why not simply increase quotas? Why not create new categories if we need to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And my system would work flawlessly, except for one issue. Birthright citizenship. Because under my plan, whether or not California allows in immigrants or not, doesn't directly affect any other state. Unless immigration creates more citizens, because citizens are guaranteed right of travel between the states in this country. So the only way my plan would actually work, is to prevent any sort of citizenship that bypasses federal naturalization laws(IE birthright citizenship).
So every state must now control its own borders? Flawlessly? The Epitome of arrogance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
My system not only allows for more potential immigration, it also helps direct the immigration to where it is wanted/needed. And it also helps to alleviate the conflict in this country between individual states, and between various political factions. Instead of North Dakota's two senators having the same relative power as California's two senators in regards to a one-size-fits-all immigration policy. The only authority North Dakota would have over California, would not be in preventing California from allowing more immigration. But only that North Dakota could vote to restrict only federal immigration and naturalization, so that the flood of immigrants coming into California, wouldn't be allowed to come to North Dakota unless they were either handed an actual federal VISA, or given citizenship. And without a federal VISA or citizenship, those immigrants aren't guaranteed any social benefits either, unless California provides them those benefits, out of their own pockets. It is simply a win-win situation from all sides.
Your system is one that would require lots more discussion and isn't quite as simple as you make it sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I think portraying it as they are being forced to immigrate for survival, is a little exaggerated. People don't leave Iowa farms to move to New York city for "survival". They move for a better life. They move for better access to services and amenities. Mexicans who move to the United States aren't going to die if they stay in Mexico. They just don't have as many opportunities in Mexico.
The average net income of a construction worker in Mexico is about $342 a month, or $4104 a year(which is not the lowest paying job in Mexico btw). If you worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that would be the equivalent of $1.97 an hour. Mexico's cost of living is lower than the United States, and so the purchasing power is about 50% higher than it is here. So $4104 a year is the equivalent of $6156 a year in the United States. Or $2.96 an hour.
Basically, a Mexican construction worker in Mexico is paid $2.96 an hour in relative US dollars. If a Mexican construction worker comes to the United States and makes even minimum wage, he will make almost 2.5 times as much as he made in Mexico. It would be the equivalent of a person making minimum wage in this country, jumping up to making $17.69 an hour.
But, minimum wage isn't even the most appropriate pricing point for construction workers. For instance, take roofers.
If you wanted your roof done, you'll need to buy the shingles. One "square" of shingles is 100 sqft. Good roofers can put up "10 squares" a day. The cost of an average square of shingles is about $70-$100. For tear down and replace, you are looking at about an additional $200 per square. So $300 per square. A house with 2,000 sqft inside, might have 3,000 sqft of roof. So 30 square at $300 a square, about $9k for a roof job.
Of the $200 in tear down and replace, about 2/5ths is tear down and cleanup, and 3/5ths is shingle installation, so about $120 a square in pure labor for just shingle install. But that is the contractor cost. The contractor probably only pays his subcontractors about $50-$70 a square. And you can hire an illegal immigrant in Oklahoma city for just $15 a square for install, and he can do 10 square a day. Which is about $150 a day, or $18.75 an hour in US dollars. If he could do that for 40 hours a week. It would be the equivalent of making 6.33 times what he made in Mexico for the same work. So that would be the equivalent of a person making minimum wage here, suddenly making $45.92 an hour, cash money, no taxes.
Basically, could a person survive in Iowa making $7.25 an hour? Sure. But why would he stay in Iowa if there are jobs in say New York, doing the same work, paying $45.92 an hour? You would have to be a complete idiot to want to stay in Iowa rather than move to New York if that was the situation. And I would bet that if France was offering low-skill construction jobs right now, paying $46 an hour, that there would be tons of Americans trying to sneak into France. And it has absolutely nothing to do with "survival", it has to do with simply living a better life, and getting paid what you're worth.
Exaggerated? What of all the workers already here that he Mexican Illegal(s) just put out of work? As you state, he is paying no taxes, what of the responsibility of the Federal Gov't to pay to protect the US, the military? What of the State taxes that are also being kept? You seem to be arguing for the ability to pay cheaper labor for your own good.
CoL is much different even from Iowa to NY. Just because a person makes more money doesn't mean they will live better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Take for instance those Filipino girls who work as foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong. Are they living in Hong Kong just to "Survive"? No, they could survive in the Philippines. They just would be very poor, and their children would be very poor.
They might only get paid $450 a month($5400 a year), and work 50+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Which would be about $2 an hour. But, if that wasn't a hell of a lot more than what they would be paid in the Philippines, they wouldn't be FDH's in Hong Kong. No one is forcing them, it is their choice. It may not be a satisfactory choice to some, but to others it is a wonderful opportunity.
I mean, something like half the people in the entire world live off $1 a day. Those poor FDH's in Hong Kong make about $15 a day. In Kenya, middle-class is basically $5 a day. An FDH in Hong Kong sending all her money to their family in Kenya, would basically make that family rich in comparison to almost everyone else in Kenya. But of course Kenyans aren't allowed to be FDH's in Hong Kong. Neither are foreigners allowed to go into that kind of contract labor in the United States, because rights groups call it a "subtle form of slavery".
And while we pat our backs as we congratulate ourselves for not "exploiting the foreign poor", those people in those other countries who are living malnourished and in squalid conditions, can only dream of coming here and working for $15 a day.
Congratulations.
PS : I really want to hire a live-in maid for $450 a month or less. Someone needs to petition the government to let me bring in some really destitute foreigner that knows how to cook good ethnic food, to come be my house maid. Thanks for your help.
I really want evil cheap creeps who want slave labor to leave this country.
Someone needs to petition the government to deport would be slave owners. Middle class Americans are not responsible for the world's poor. People who want to demolist our labor laws, decimate our middle class and turn this country into a third world hellhole are psychopaths.
Who said anything about slavery? You obviously have no idea about how capitalism works.
Slavery is force, domestic helpers are not forced to do anything.
Sure you can argue that "economic circumstances" are "forcing them" to work for low wages just for their own survival. But that is still not the same as real force.
I mean, if a person doesn't work, they can't feed themselves. And so you could argue "everyone has to work for their own survival". But does that mean we are all slaves?
If you understood capitalism, you would understand that in a free-market, people voluntarily interact with each other for their own benefit. And no one would agree to do anything for someone else, unless they believed they were better off because of it.
If I am a home-owner, and I need work done on my roof. I will want to pay the lowest price for the work that I need done. If I pay more than the lowest price, its either because I believe a higher price will give me better quality, or its because I'm engaging in charity.
And the people offering me the lowest price for the roof work, are only offering me that price, because they think that by offering their lower prices that they will be better off.
When it comes to the domestic foreign helpers from the video I linked before. I would agree with you to a large extent, they are almost the equivalent of "indentured servants", which is practically slavery. But, I think you are misunderstanding the situation we have found ourselves in the world, because you can only understand the world based from your own perspective.
As I said before, a Foreign domestic helper makes roughly the equivalent of $2 an hour. The minimum wage in this country is $7.25 an hour. So people might perceive the $2 an hour, as being an intolerable exploitation of foreign workers. But how does the foreign domestic helper see the $2 an hour wage? And if that worker is denied the ability to offer her service for low wages, what options does she realistically have to better her life? In reality, if you deny her the chance to come to the United States and work for me for $15 a day, then you are condemning her to stay in the Philippines in even worse poverty.
As I said before, nearly half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives on $1.25 a day. If you were a Kenyan living on $1.25 a day, and you were offered the chance to come to the United States and work for $15 a day, why wouldn't you take it? I would take it.
I can guarantee you that if I was a Mexican getting paid $2 an hour, and they were offering $10 an hour for the same work in the United States, I would be jumping the border just as fast as the Mexicans already are. If I was a Guatemalan getting paid $1 an hour, I would be jumping the border even faster than if I was Mexican. And if I was Kenyan or Nigerian or Congolese or Somalian, and I was living on $1.25 a day, then $1 an hour would make me feel absolutely rich.
The same basic principle also applies to indentured servants. People wouldn't have agreed to become indentured servants if it didn't benefit them.
In Bangladesh nearly half of all children suffer from malnutrition because they are so poor. So lets pretend you were Bangladeshi and a typhoon had just struck your village, your crops were destroyed, and your family was starving. Your life is in shambles, and there is little you can do to pull yourself out of the pit of despair. But, lets pretend I come along and say, "Hey you can come to the United States, and I will pay for your food and clothing. You will live in a big house, with your own room, with your own bathroom with your own shower. You will have heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, free internet, a cell phone with unlimited everything(so you could call your family). I will get you a drivers license and a cheap car to drive(to run errands for me). All you have to do is be my maid for two years, which is just doing the cooking and cleaning around my house, watching my kids, and doing some errands for me." Would you take the offer? And if I was getting paid even $100 a month, I could send enough money back home to my family to support a couple family members.
My point is, it seems that people who so much are trying to help the poor, end up hurting them. And you aren't helping the poor of the world in any demonstrable way be denying them the ability to come to the United States and working for low wages. You are condemning them to poverty.
If your interest is really in the poor in the United States, and you don't want to bring their wages to be brought down to the same level as foreigners. That's fine, you can subsidize Americans citizens who are poor if you want. Food stamps, housing assistance, charities, etc. But I simply don't believe it is somehow more moral to condemn the poor in other countries to live in poverty in their own countries, because you think someone like myself would take advantage of them.
The truth is, not only would I not take advantage of them, I would greatly elevate their quality of life. And people like me would create more demand for cars, cell phones, food, clothing, larger housing, etc. Thus giving more employment in other sectors of the economy to Americans.
After the US Constitution, the US had relatively free immigration up until 1819 with the passage of the Steerage Act Other Federal statutes that limited immigration restrictions were the Treaty of Tientsin (1858) and the Burlingame Treaty (1868). The USC also regulates immigration, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3:Not to mention the Aliens Acts of 1798 which allowed for deportation of immigrants. The States were allowed to regulate their residents, and migrants. They weren't allowed to regulate immigration other than to charge a fee for paupers, etc. from the ships captain to cover the costs of public charges that arrived on his ship.
Look, you are basically wrong on all counts.
Show me exactly where at in the constitution prohibits the states from regulating immigration. You keep talking about Article 1, section 8, clause 3, which states "The Congress shall have the power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Uniform rule of naturalization is not the same as a uniform rule of immigration. Immigration is not naturalization. The truth is, Article 1, section 8, clause 3 has nothing to do with the Supreme Court case that overturned the immigration laws before 1875. The real basis for that case had to do more with the power of the US to make treaties with foreign countries, and to regulate trade with foreign nations.
You keep saying the states should not have the right to prohibit immigration, only the federal government should. And I agree. What I'm saying is that, the federal government should not have the right to prohibit the states from giving residency to foreigners in their own states.
It is true that states prohibiting immigration could interfere with commerce, and could interfere with foreign relations. But allowing in additional immigration doesn't necessarily interfere with the ability for foreign nations to trade in this country, nor does it necessarily interfere with foreign policy.
A good example of this is the sanctuary cities in California. How do those cities interfere with foreign policy or international/interstate commerce? They don't, which is why they continue to exist.
What are the complaints about sanctuary cities? The only real complaints, are about any of the social benefits the people in those areas might benefit from. And about "anchor babies", which is an issue of birthright citizenship. It has absolutely nothing to do with national security or foreign relations or international commerce. My argument is that the sates should be allowed to create sanctuary cities or even sanctuary states, which would basically be completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, other than in the case of national security risks.
I'm not advocating to take away from the system we already have, I'm just advocating to add the ability for states themselves to be able to issue VISA's/residency. This would allow the federal government the same overall power, but would allow states who want more immigrants, to be able to have more immigrants. Without a state who doesn't want immigrants, having the ability to prohibit the states that do. And I just don't see how you could possibly object to my position? Why would it be a bad thing?
You should read this article, it actually made me cry a little bit.
Why not simply increase quotas? Why not create new categories if we need to?
The problem with new quotas or categories, is that it is still a one-size-fits-all policy. When you attempt to create a one-size-fits-all policy, you have to make New York agree with Texas or Utah. Government is best when it is local. Any opportunity to empower the states or the people, is an opportunity we should take. If California could invite in more immigrants, then it wouldn't have as much of a need to push for changes to national immigration laws, so immigration policy would be less of a national issue than it is now. And it wouldn't be one of the major issues in presidential politics.
Quote:
So every state must now control its own borders? Flawlessly? The Epitome of arrogance.
Look, the federal government is not a real separate entity. It consists of the people of the United States. Texas has been sending the national guard and other police forces to the border to enforce our immigration laws, because they say the federal government has been failing to enforce its own laws. The same thing can be said for Arizona. If you think the federal government is doing a good enough job controlling the border, you are delusional. There are hundreds of thousands of people coming across the border illegally every single year. There is nothing wrong with the states using the same resources they already allot to the federal government, to make sure the immigration laws are enforced in their own territory.
Quote:
CoL is much different even from Iowa to NY. Just because a person makes more money doesn't mean they will live better.
You are missing the point. People don't move from Iowa to New York to be poorer than they were in Iowa. They move from Iowa to New York because they believe they will be better off. If the pay in New York didn't offset the higher cost of living, then they would stay in Iowa.
The cost of living in the United States is higher than in Mexico, the Mexicans don't come here to be poorer, they come here to be better off. They aren't idiots. They go to where they benefit the most.
As I said before, if Canada was paying $46 an hour for the same work you were doing at minimum wage here($7.25 an hour), and the cost of living was only 50% higher than it is here. But they wouldn't let you immigrate legally to Canada. Would you attempt to move to Canada illegally? How many Americans who are currently making minimum wage might attempt to immigrate illegally to Canada, if Canada was paying nearly $50 an hour for the same work they were getting paid $7.25 an hour for here.
I can guarantee you, that if that was the situation, you would see a huge flood of Americans trying to sneak into Canada. Why wouldn't they? Wouldn't they be idiots if they stayed here? Why work for less than you're worth?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-06-2012 at 09:48 PM..
Show me exactly where at in the constitution prohibits the states from regulating immigration. You keep talking about Article 1, section 8, clause 3, which states "The Congress shall have the power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Uniform rule of naturalization is not the same as a uniform rule of immigration. Immigration is not naturalization. The truth is, Article 1, section 8, clause 3 has nothing to do with the Supreme Court case that overturned the immigration laws before 1875. The real basis for that case had to do more with the power of the US to make treaties with foreign countries, and to regulate trade with foreign nations.
Just because the word immigration is not in the USC doesn't mean its concept isn't. It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigrant/immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You keep saying the states should not have the right to prohibit immigration, only the federal government should. And I agree. What I'm saying is that, the federal government should not have the right to prohibit the states from giving residency to foreigners in their own states.
Foreigners are granted residency within the state, they are known as Legal Permanent Residents. The only foreigners that can not obtain residency within a state are those that did not enter with authorization or they entered on a temporary visa, they are known as illegals and "visitors".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
It is true that states prohibiting immigration could interfere with commerce, and could interfere with foreign relations. But allowing in additional immigration doesn't necessarily interfere with the ability for foreign nations to trade in this country, nor does it necessarily interfere with foreign policy.
But it can interfere, I refer back to your original court case, the state can then regulate as to whom is or is not to be allowed in based on their discretion, hence the ruling from your case and USC, A1S8C3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
A good example of this is the sanctuary cities in California. How do those cities interfere with foreign policy or international/interstate commerce? They don't, which is why they continue to exist.
What are the complaints about sanctuary cities? The only real complaints, are about any of the social benefits the people in those areas might benefit from. And about "anchor babies", which is an issue of birthright citizenship. It has absolutely nothing to do with national security or foreign relations or international commerce. My argument is that the sates should be allowed to create sanctuary cities or even sanctuary states, which would basically be completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, other than in the case of national security risks.
Sanctuary cities are in direct violation of Federal Law. They are also termed that due to a statute from the City Council which is merely 5 - 7 people voting for it, hardly a democracy at that point. The Mayor may even take it up as a political ploy to stay in office. Hell even the President has done it with his DHS Policy of DACA. This goes against the Congress of which the DREAM Act was voted down by a bi-partisan vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I'm not advocating to take away from the system we already have, I'm just advocating to add the ability for states themselves to be able to issue VISA's/residency. This would allow the federal government the same overall power, but would allow states who want more immigrants, to be able to have more immigrants. Without a state who doesn't want immigrants, having the ability to prohibit the states that do. And I just don't see how you could possibly object to my position? Why would it be a bad thing?
So then each state must control its own borders so that no immigrant, say from CA could illegally migrate to say Nevada. What about the Residents of CA, they too would need some documentation to get past the CA border into another state. Why would you want to become Europe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You should read this article, it actually made me cry a little bit.
I read it and had to laugh at the idiot author thinking that the Statue of Liberty is for immigrants. Its not what the Statue represented, then or now. Epic failure by the author.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The problem with new quotas or categories, is that it is still a one-size-fits-all policy. When you attempt to create a one-size-fits-all policy, you have to make New York agree with Texas or Utah. Government is best when it is local. Any opportunity to empower the states or the people, is an opportunity we should take. If California could invite in more immigrants, then it wouldn't have as much of a need to push for changes to national immigration laws, so immigration policy would be less of a national issue than it is now. And it wouldn't be one of the major issues in presidential politics.
But wouldn't the new visa holders be going to where they were contracted? That was your argument, was it not? The Foreign Domestic you want you could obtain, you could even take her to a new state if you were to move. Your ideal wouldn't allow for that as she would be limited to only one state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Look, the federal government is not a real separate entity. It consists of the people of the United States. Texas has been sending the national guard and other police forces to the border to enforce our immigration laws, because they say the federal government has been failing to enforce its own laws. The same thing can be said for Arizona. If you think the federal government is doing a good enough job controlling the border, you are delusional. There are hundreds of thousands of people coming across the border illegally every single year. There is nothing wrong with the states using the same resources they already allot to the federal government, to make sure the immigration laws are enforced in their own territory.
It was the Feds that sent the National Guard to the border at the behest of the State Governors of the border states. I take it you have never served. Do I think the Feds have controlled the borders good? LMFAO Hardly. Obamas number count is inflated due to counting those they catch and deport the same day, sometimes the same person more than once in one day, but counted each time. Should the states be allowed to better guard the national border? YES. The problem is the Feds are in charge of immigrants and the state is limited to assuming whom ever is within the state is allowed to be there, as I previously stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You are missing the point. People don't move from Iowa to New York to be poorer than they were in Iowa. They move from Iowa to New York because they believe they will be better off. If the pay in New York didn't offset the higher cost of living, then they would stay in Iowa.
Missing the point? NO, I get it, I'm merely illustrating that your assumptions are just that, assumptions. You are assuming that the job in NY and the CoL would be better. Sure the pay would be higher, but so would the CoL, they are pretty relative. Pay would have to be greater with a CoL at or near the CoL the person is leaving for it to be a better deal. If pay increased by 10% but CoL was also 10% or even higher it would not make sense to move. CoL would have to be at or nearer 0% for it to be a viable option. One would also have to take into consideration the expenses of moving and how long it will take to recover that money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The cost of living in the United States is higher than in Mexico, the Mexicans don't come here to be poorer, they come here to be better off. They aren't idiots. They go to where they benefit the most.
Sure they come here for their own economic gain. That's also why you see houses with an abundance of people living in them (I refer to your Caged people in China video) they pay for the area the sleep in and send the rest home. They can file tax returns and have negative tax rates where in they receive money from the IRS (Tax payer money) simply by claiming children on their tax forms (Over $4.7B was paid out to illegals in 2010 and forecast to be over $7B in 2011), money they have no right to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As I said before, if Canada was paying $46 an hour for the same work you were doing at minimum wage here($7.25 an hour), and the cost of living was only 50% higher than it is here. But they wouldn't let you immigrate legally to Canada. Would you attempt to move to Canada illegally? How many Americans who are currently making minimum wage might attempt to immigrate illegally to Canada, if Canada was paying nearly $50 an hour for the same work they were getting paid $7.25 an hour for here.
I can guarantee you, that if that was the situation, you would see a huge flood of Americans trying to sneak into Canada. Why wouldn't they? Wouldn't they be idiots if they stayed here? Why work for less than you're worth?
I can work year round in CA Construction where as in Canada I am limited to 4 - 6 months out of the year. Why would they pay the same hourly rate? Canada would have to pay enough to offset the 6 - 8 months I'm not working. I would have to make enough money in that short time to sustain myself the rest of the time. With a higher CoL, I would be a fool to go to Canada to only work 1/2 the year and have to live off what I made the other half. Your scenario doesn't work for everybody, or anybody with common sense, it is job dependent.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 11-07-2012 at 12:16 AM..
Just because the word immigration is not in the USC doesn't mean its concept isn't. It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigrant/immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
Why does it not make sense? It makes perfect sense. If you understand why it was that the federal government, through our constitution, gained authority over naturalization in the first place.
The reason the Congress regulates naturalization and not immigration, is because the constitution guarantees right of travel to all citizens of any state, into all other states. And once a citizen of Texas enters Oklahoma, then they are effectively a citizen of Oklahoma, and are guaranteed all the privileges and immunities of the any citizen of that state.
And so, if California was able to regulate naturalization on its own, then it could invite all the Mexicans it wanted into the country and give them citizenship, which would enable those Mexicans who are now US citizens the right to travel to any state in the United States and be guaranteed all the rights and privileges of the people of that state. Effectively, California could unilaterally give unlimited citizenship to immigrants that the other states didn't want, and which would hurt those states.
The idea of the constitution, was to give only the powers to the federal government which were absolutely necessary to basically keep the states from fighting with each other, and to guarantee our nations security. Thats it, go read about Shay's rebellion, and the tariff crisis, and other events between our independence and the constitutional convention. Go read the framework of the constitution proposed by James Madison. The constitution was created to address the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which made it nearly impossible to even defend this nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. And it allowed the states to pass laws that basically exploited each other for economic gain.
The federal government's right to regulate naturalization was not an attempt to make the federal government the all powerful entity that controlled all immigration. It was only so that a single state couldn't give citizenship out to the detriment of the other states. The states had authority to regulate immigration, but couldn't give anyone citizenship unless the federal government(through the congress/majority of states/majority of people) basically allowed it.
When you look at my plan, it follows the same basic logical path the framers of the constitution had desired. To give the states as much authority over immigration as possible, while also not doing harm to the other states. Through preventing California from handing out citizenship to immigrants who the other states don't agree should be citizens, but allowing them to give residency to anyone they believe should be able to live in California.
In my view, my plan actually does immigration better than the current system of immigration. Because it allows all of the states to have a say in who becomes a citizen, and so the states won't have the ability to do harm to each other. But also, it prevents the majority of the states from doing harm to a minority of states.
If you follow the logical basis of my plan, it would not hinder anyone who wants to come to the United States today, they could still come here in exactly the same fashion as they already do. It would just allow individual states to give residency/VISA's to more immigrants who they think would benefit their particular state, and would only apply to that state.
As I said before, if California wants to give every single illegal immigrant in one of their "sanctuary cities" a residency card, which allows those immigrants to only live in California, or just parts of California. Why should someone in Kansas have any right to tell them they can't? Why should the person in Kansas care? How does it affect him?
The only way it can affect him, is if that resident of California can somehow bypass our immigration laws and become a citizen, or their offspring could become a citizen by bypassing the naturalization process. Or if that Kansan becomes burdened by higher taxes as a result of those immigrants living in California(welfare).
If you get rid of federal welfare, and you get rid of birthright citizenship, then you can empower the states to largely regulate their own immigration on top of what the federal government is doing. And it is simply a better system than we have now, and will cause less fighting between the states than we already have when it comes to immigration.
What is wrong with my plan, please explain.
Quote:
Sanctuary cities are in direct violation of Federal Law. They are also termed that due to a statute from the City Council which is merely 5 - 7 people voting for it, hardly a democracy at that point. The Mayor may even take it up as a political ploy to stay in office. Hell even the President has done it with his DHS Policy of DACA. This goes against the Congress of which the DREAM Act was voted down by a bi-partisan vote.
Why is it any business of the federal government to do anything about the sanctuary city? Why doesn't the state do something about the sanctuary city if its a problem? Don't states have their own legal systems? Don't states have their own constitutions? The federal government isn't doing anything about it anyway. And because of the system we have now, the federal government tries to say the states can't even enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books. Its really quite ridiculous.
Quote:
So then each state must control its own borders so that no immigrant, say from CA could illegally migrate to say Nevada. What about the Residents of CA, they too would need some documentation to get past the CA border into another state. Why would you want to become Europe?
Look, there are already 12-20 million illegal immigrants living in this country. A great many of those people already live in so-called "sanctuary cities", and drive from one state to another in this country readily. What is preventing those illegal immigrants from driving from California to Nevada, right now? Nothing.
I don't believe that checkpoints or fences would be necessary, and I'm sure the federal government would say that it was unconstitutional. But at the same time, I'm sure the state of Nevada might be more vigilante in verifying the legal status of people coming and going from Nevada, if it became a problem. Just like Arizona did.
And when you look at the states that recently passed strict immigration laws, what happened? Illegal immigrants left those states in huge numbers, to states that are more welcoming of the illegal immigrants. My plan doesn't fundamentally change the system. It just allows states to give the illegal immigrants, who already live in those states, and who are largely protected by those states, some legal status, so they can feel more secure, and not be abused/exploited.
I read it and had to laugh at the idiot author thinking that the Statue of Liberty is for immigrants. Its not what the Statue represented, then or now. Epic failure by the author.
Well, while I agree that the statue of liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. It was just a symbol of friendship between the US and France. I think the rest of the article was very compelling. And it spells out the argument I have intended to make repeatedly.
My favorite line in the article "We should not use the welfare state as an excuse for rejecting free immigration; instead, we should use freedom as a reason for ending both the welfare state and immigration controls — and for ending the real and potential evils associated with them."
Quote:
But wouldn't the new visa holders be going to where they were contracted? That was your argument, was it not? The Foreign Domestic you want you could obtain, you could even take her to a new state if you were to move. Your ideal wouldn't allow for that as she would be limited to only one state.
Well, under my system, we could have both federal and state VISA's. A federal VISA would apply to the whole country(just as it does now), and state VISA's only to a single state. I'm sure that certain states would enter into "interstate pacts" with each other to recognize each others VISA's(just like some states recognize each others concealed carry permits, and other documents). And the federal government might create a sort of right of temporary travel of immigrants through a state(which is already what it does with gun laws, you can bring a gun with you as long as you are traveling through a state, and not intending to stay), on the basis of interstate commerce.
There is a possibility that I might want to move to another state, and that state might deny me the ability the bring my maid into it, and the federal government might also deny me the VISA to bring her as well. But its not like I have to move to another state. And if I absolutely had to move, then I might just have to terminate the contract with the maid. What if a person in Hong Kong decides to move to mainland China? I mean, its kind of a trivial question.
Quote:
It was the Feds that sent the National Guard to the border at the behest of the State Governors of the border states. I take it you have never served. Do I think the Feds have controlled the borders good? LMFAO Hardly. Obamas number count is inflated due to counting those they catch and deport the same day, sometimes the same person more than once in one day, but counted each time. Should the states be allowed to better guard the national border? YES. The problem is the Feds are in charge of immigrants and the state is limited to assuming whom ever is within the state is allowed to be there, as I previously stated.
I don't see anything wrong with the states being able to enforce federal immigration laws. The Supreme Court case against Arizona was wrong. It went 5-3, and as always, Scalia was correct in his general assessment of how the courts need to apply the constitution. If the states in 1791 believed that in the near future, they would be stripped of the right to regulate their own immigration and enforce immigration laws, would they have ratified the constitution? Absolutely not.
Quote:
Missing the point? NO, I get it, I'm merely illustrating that your assumptions are just that, assumptions. You are assuming that the job in NY and the CoL would be better. Sure the pay would be higher, but so would the CoL, they are pretty relative. Pay would have to be greater with a CoL at or near the CoL the person is leaving for it to be a better deal. If pay increased by 10% but CoL was also 10% or even higher it would not make sense to move. CoL would have to be at or nearer 0% for it to be a viable option. One would also have to take into consideration the expenses of moving and how long it will take to recover that money.
I didn't assume anything. I said that the reason people leave Iowa to live in New York, is because they believe that they will be better off than they were before. If they move to New York and they aren't better off, then they will move back to Iowa. That is how the world works. People tend to go where they believe they will have the best quality of life. People move from the United States to go to other countries all the time, even poor countries, because they believe that their life with be better off because of the move. There are plenty of Americans who work for American companies that are living in China right now, because that's where their job went.
My brother-in-law is in the military, and he actually asked to be sent to Afghanistan.
Do you think its because he likes it in Afghanistan? No. Its because he is a major in the army, and when he is in Afghanistan he doesn't have to pay taxes on the $100,000 he makes in a year, plus hazardous duty pay. So basically, he makes over $30k more a year when he is stationed in Afghanistan. He doesn't like Afghanistan, its a craphole. He just likes the money.
Quote:
Sure they come here for their own economic gain. That's also why you see houses with an abundance of people living in them (I refer to your Caged people in China video) they pay for the area the sleep in and send the rest home. They can file tax returns and have negative tax rates where in they receive money from the IRS (Tax payer money) simply by claiming children on their tax forms (Over $4.7B was paid out to illegals in 2010 and forecast to be over $7B in 2011), money they have no right to.
But that isn't an issue of immigration, that is an issue of tax policy, which can easily be solved.
As for them sending their money home. I think you are taking a sort of narrow view of how that all works.
There are over 100,000 Filipinos living in Hong Kong, there used to be a law that required all maids to send 50-70% of their income home as a remittance. Did that sink the Hong Kong economy? No. You are talking about a trivial amount of money. If the people of Mexico want to come up to the United States and do all of our work for us, in exchange for some green paper, you can't find a better deal than that. We can print green paper off all day long.
This is trivial crap anyway. If there were one million Mexicans all sending $500 a month back to Mexico. That would be $6 billion dollars. The US military dumps hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign nations every year. And the US government hands out about $50 billion a year in foreign aid. And that money, we get absolutely nothing out of. A lot of what the Mexicans produce in this country, we sell back to them.
Quote:
I can work year round in CA Construction where as in Canada I am limited to 4 - 6 months out of the year. Why would they pay the same hourly rate? Canada would have to pay enough to offset the 6 - 8 months I'm not working. I would have to make enough money in that short time to sustain myself the rest of the time. With a higher CoL, I would be a fool to go to Canada to only work 1/2 the year and have to live off what I made the other half. Your scenario doesn't work for everybody, or anybody with common sense, it is job dependent.
It was just an explanation to Americans who can't understand the pay difference, about why immigrants come here.
My point was, a Mexican construction worker would make about 3-6 times more in the United States than they do in Mexico, even after cost of living. So the question again was, if you were making $15 an hour doing construction in the United States, and Canada was paying $90 an hour for construction workers. Would you move to Canada to be a construction worker, or would you stay in the United States?
That wasn't a literal question, it was intended to explain why Mexicans come here in the first place, and to drive home to you that Americans are no better than Mexicans. If an American could move to another country and make 3-6 times as much as they make here, they would leave this country in a heartbeat, legally or illegally, wouldn't matter.
I mean, do you think African-Americans would stick around if the jobs in Africa were paying 6x better than they are here even after COL?
Polish and other Eastern Europeans have also been illegally immigrating to the United States for a long time as well. Before Poland entered the EU, the Polish constantly illegally immigrated all over Europe, especially to the UK. This isn't a race issue, it isn't a culture issue. It is an economic issue. People are going to go where they have the best opportunities, it doesn't matter who you are.
And as I said before, if you were living on a dollar a day in some poor country, and I offered to pay you $15 a day plus food and housing. Wouldn't you jump on it immediately? Who would benefit from such an arrangement?
Why does it not make sense? It makes perfect sense. If you understand why it was that the federal government, through our constitution, gained authority over naturalization in the first place.
The reason the Congress regulates naturalization and not immigration, is because the constitution guarantees right of travel to all citizens of any state, into all other states. And once a citizen of Texas enters Oklahoma, then they are effectively a citizen of Oklahoma, and are guaranteed all the privileges and immunities of the any citizen of that state.
But Congress does regulate immigration of foreigners based on A1S8C3. A citizen of the one state is a citizen of all the states; the P & I Clause of the USC, A4S2C1. States are not allowed to regulate citizenship, only residency status, they must assume all within a state are legally present to the extent allowed by the Feds to deny certain entitlements/welfare. States have not been allowed to determine ones Citizenship status since the USC. When the original 13 colonies were colonies they were allowed to naturalize their own as citizens of that colony which could not be transferred to another colony. If one were to move to another colony they would have to apply for citizenship in the new colony and adhere to their naturalization practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And so, if California was able to regulate naturalization on its own, then it could invite all the Mexicans it wanted into the country and give them citizenship, which would enable those Mexicans who are now US citizens the right to travel to any state in the United States and be guaranteed all the rights and privileges of the people of that state. Effectively, California could unilaterally give unlimited citizenship to immigrants that the other states didn't want, and which would hurt those states.
But then CA would have to be an independent state, like in Europe. The US is a group of Federated States, you would have to eradicate the USC in order to re-write it and come up with something like the EU or the Schengen of Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The federal government's right to regulate naturalization was not an attempt to make the federal government the all powerful entity that controlled all immigration. It was only so that a single state couldn't give citizenship out to the detriment of the other states. The states had authority to regulate immigration, but couldn't give anyone citizenship unless the federal government(through the congress/majority of states/majority of people) basically allowed it.
The states had authority to regulate residency/citizenship within the state, they never had the authority to regulate immigration, not even as colonies. As colonies they had to adhere to the King of Englands allowance of immigrants to enter the colonies. The only regulations were the vagabonds, paupers, etc not being allowed to become a citizen of that colony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
When you look at my plan, it follows the same basic logical path the framers of the constitution had desired. To give the states as much authority over immigration as possible, while also not doing harm to the other states. Through preventing California from handing out citizenship to immigrants who the other states don't agree should be citizens, but allowing them to give residency to anyone they believe should be able to live in California.
Your plan attempts to create a version of the anti-federalist ideals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
In my view, my plan actually does immigration better than the current system of immigration. Because it allows all of the states to have a say in who becomes a citizen, and so the states won't have the ability to do harm to each other. But also, it prevents the majority of the states from doing harm to a minority of states.
The key words are: "In my view". The individual state would only be able to grant citizenship of its own state, how would you prevent the "immigrant" from going to another state, or even the citizen, how would they be allowed to move to another state. It would be like it was in the colonies prior to the USC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
If you follow the logical basis of my plan, it would not hinder anyone who wants to come to the United States today, they could still come here in exactly the same fashion as they already do. It would just allow individual states to give residency/VISA's to more immigrants who they think would benefit their particular state, and would only apply to that state.
Your logic is that of the anti-federalists, a desire to abolish the USC and the federation of the states all together making us just like Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As I said before, if California wants to give every single illegal immigrant in one of their "sanctuary cities" a residency card, which allows those immigrants to only live in California, or just parts of California. Why should someone in Kansas have any right to tell them they can't? Why should the person in Kansas care? How does it affect him?
The only way it can affect him, is if that resident of California can somehow bypass our immigration laws and become a citizen, or their offspring could become a citizen by bypassing the naturalization process. Or if that Kansan becomes burdened by higher taxes as a result of those immigrants living in California(welfare).
If you get rid of federal welfare, and you get rid of birthright citizenship, then you can empower the states to largely regulate their own immigration on top of what the federal government is doing. And it is simply a better system than we have now, and will cause less fighting between the states than we already have when it comes to immigration.
What is wrong with my plan, please explain.
The residents of CA would be burdened with higher taxes. What of the children born from residents of a state, will they become citizens of that state from birth due to the parents being residents? You are creating individual nation states like the EU vs the Federated states that we have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Why is it any business of the federal government to do anything about the sanctuary city? Why doesn't the state do something about the sanctuary city if its a problem? Don't states have their own legal systems? Don't states have their own constitutions? The federal government isn't doing anything about it anyway. And because of the system we have now, the federal government tries to say the states can't even enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books. Its really quite ridiculous.
I agree, it is ridiculous. The sanctuary cities are doing it out of protest against the Feds, its all about politics. These sanctuary cities want to give voice to people who have no legality in our system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Look, there are already 12-20 million illegal immigrants living in this country. A great many of those people already live in so-called "sanctuary cities", and drive from one state to another in this country readily. What is preventing those illegal immigrants from driving from California to Nevada, right now? Nothing.
I don't believe that checkpoints or fences would be necessary, and I'm sure the federal government would say that it was unconstitutional. But at the same time, I'm sure the state of Nevada might be more vigilante in verifying the legal status of people coming and going from Nevada, if it became a problem. Just like Arizona did.
The verification of status is the same in all states. The AZ law really didn't change what the states all ready had the ability to do, nor did it change the LE ability to question the status of a person if booked. It is up to the Feds to pursue the individual for immigration violations, if the feds don't pursue the individual yet the person is an illegal, the state can not hold that person indefinitely. Human rights come into play in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And when you look at the states that recently passed strict immigration laws, what happened? Illegal immigrants left those states in huge numbers, to states that are more welcoming of the illegal immigrants. My plan doesn't fundamentally change the system. It just allows states to give the illegal immigrants, who already live in those states, and who are largely protected by those states, some legal status, so they can feel more secure, and not be abused/exploited.
Sure some left, many didn't. Why should they feel more secure? Why should they be protected more than what they already are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Well, while I agree that the statue of liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. It was just a symbol of friendship between the US and France. I think the rest of the article was very compelling. And it spells out the argument I have intended to make repeatedly.
My favorite line in the article "We should not use the welfare state as an excuse for rejecting free immigration; instead, we should use freedom as a reason for ending both the welfare state and immigration controls — and for ending the real and potential evils associated with them."
I see it as if he couldn't understand what the Statue is actually, he wasn't worth listening to his ideals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Well, under my system, we could have both federal and state VISA's. A federal VISA would apply to the whole country(just as it does now), and state VISA's only to a single state. I'm sure that certain states would enter into "interstate pacts" with each other to recognize each others VISA's(just like some states recognize each others concealed carry permits, and other documents). And the federal government might create a sort of right of temporary travel of immigrants through a state(which is already what it does with gun laws, you can bring a gun with you as long as you are traveling through a state, and not intending to stay), on the basis of interstate commerce.
Again you look to the EU for your ideals. Why do you want to be like Europe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
There is a possibility that I might want to move to another state, and that state might deny me the ability the bring my maid into it, and the federal government might also deny me the VISA to bring her as well. But its not like I have to move to another state. And if I absolutely had to move, then I might just have to terminate the contract with the maid. What if a person in Hong Kong decides to move to mainland China? I mean, its kind of a trivial question.
Everything that shows flaws in your ideals is dismissed as trivial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I don't see anything wrong with the states being able to enforce federal immigration laws. The Supreme Court case against Arizona was wrong. It went 5-3, and as always, Scalia was correct in his general assessment of how the courts need to apply the constitution. If the states in 1791 believed that in the near future, they would be stripped of the right to regulate their own immigration and enforce immigration laws, would they have ratified the constitution? Absolutely not.
Neither do I. There were only 14 states then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
There are over 100,000 Filipinos living in Hong Kong, there used to be a law that required all maids to send 50-70% of their income home as a remittance. Did that sink the Hong Kong economy? No. You are talking about a trivial amount of money. If the people of Mexico want to come up to the United States and do all of our work for us, in exchange for some green paper, you can't find a better deal than that. We can print green paper off all day long.
Its not about the remittances, I brought up the point of the rich paying cheaper maids by importing them while those that didn't meet the income requirements having to pay higher prices for a maid and the resident employees of Hong Kong losing out on better wages due to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
This is trivial crap anyway. If there were one million Mexicans all sending $500 a month back to Mexico. That would be $6 billion dollars. The US military dumps hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign nations every year. And the US government hands out about $50 billion a year in foreign aid. And that money, we get absolutely nothing out of. A lot of what the Mexicans produce in this country, we sell back to them.
My point is, it seems that people who so much are trying to help the poor, end up hurting them. And you aren't helping the poor of the world in any demonstrable way be denying them the ability to come to the United States and working for low wages. You are condemning them to poverty.
This is easily one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read in this forum. A billion people live on less than $2 a day. What kind of lunatic thinks we should import them all here? The way to solve world poverty is not by lowering American living standards, shoving aside labor protections, pushing down American wages and punishing the American middle class.
Your whole argument is santimonious justifications for screwing your fellow Americans. If you are okay with paying someone crappy wages then move somewhere else.
Quote:
The free market is good my friend.
We are not friends. You are the sort of person who needs to be watched very closely lest you employ our local six year old or import poverty and demand the rest of us pay the true costs of your profits. Your free market is a delusion.
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.
