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.
if a building was built exclusively by immigrants (counting the materials, architects, engineers, lawyers...), then the immigrants were paid and avoided any support from the Immigration tax, hence no exclusive rights or access.
so basically your law means that people will pick up the slack, but everyone will enjoy the benefits? that doesnt make much sense.
Quote:
that's inherent with immigration.
not due to immigration itself. its due to the intolerance and non-communal attitudes of the people.
Quote:
immigration creates social harmony? by growing barrios, meccas, chinatowns, little italys, shantytowns and requiring knowledge of 7-80 languages?
it could. we could all be cultured and harmonized, if we chose to be. notice how the mexicans, arabs/jews, chinese, italians, etc. have all been isolated by the general american population at some point in our nation's history? hmm, what a coincidence.
and what is so bad about being multi-lingual? i never understood people's unwillingness to learn or even accept a secondary language.
Yeah...like paying doctors and lawyers more than we pay janitors and fast-food workers. I don't see any of them living next door to one another.
that has to do with housing development. they tend to group similar-priced houses in certain neighborhoods. besides, thats not social segregation. we will always have a need for the clean-up crew and customer service people. doctors and lawyers serve a vital function, too. we need people to fill all the spots.
so basically your law means that people will pick up the slack, but everyone will enjoy the benefits? that doesnt make much sense.
meaning, the benefit of free medical care, welfare, anchoring, overpopulation... etc?
seems like you are confused with the concept in my initial post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreDudley
it is evident that there is a split in our society in regards to immigration, because those that are against immigration are forced to support it through their tax dollars, loss of economic opportunities, higher cost of living, and decrease in quality of life.
in a democratic society, immigration would not be dependent on mandated financial, social, and economic support for it. in a free society, immigration would be financially, socially, and economically supported by those who favor immigration, without burdening those who do not. implementing a democratic and enlightened solution to the immigration issue would require the abolishment of the mandated support for immigration.
in such a democratic solution, there would be a voluntary Immigration tax collected from those that support immigration, to support and cover the costs of immigrants and their needs and demands. the allowance and continuation of immigration would be contingent upon the successful coverage of immigration costs by the Immigration tax and the economic and financial success of immigration. this approach would justly represent the true will and ability of our society and nature of immigration.
Quote:
not due to immigration itself. its due to the intolerance and non-communal attitudes of the people.
by tolerating you mean: tolerating our laws, borders, culture, and language? by communal you mean barrios?
Quote:
and what is so bad about being multi-lingual? i never understood people's unwillingness to learn or even accept a secondary language.
i agree, spanish shouldn't be the only language in america or mexico.
it is evident that there is a split in our society in regards to immigration, because those that are against immigration are forced to support it through their tax dollars, loss of economic opportunities, higher cost of living, and decrease in quality of life.
in a democratic society, immigration would not be dependent on mandated financial, social, and economic support for it. in a free society, immigration would be financially, socially, and economically supported by those who favor immigration, without burdening those who do not. implementing a democratic and enlightened solution to the immigration issue would require the abolishment of the mandated support for immigration.
in such a democratic solution, there would be a voluntary Immigration tax collected from those that support immigration, to support and cover the costs of immigrants and their needs and demands. the allowance and continuation of immigration would be contingent upon the successful coverage of immigration costs by the Immigration tax and the economic and financial success of immigration. this approach would justly represent the true will and ability of our society and nature of immigration.
Kind of can see this perspective, but not in a personal way. However, if California wanted to have a fairly open immigration process (all legal of course) and Texas wanted to have no immigration, I would be OK with this on a state by state basis. It would be interesting to see the contrast in how much the two states would suffer in liability and prosper from growth.
Kind of can see this perspective, but not in a personal way. However, if California wanted to have a fairly open immigration process (all legal of course) and Texas wanted to have no immigration, I would be OK with this on a state by state basis. It would be interesting to see the contrast in how much the two states would suffer in liability and prosper from growth.
That doesn't work, though. California can't make decisions like that because it doesn't have jurisdiction over MAKING immigration law; only ENFORCING it. Plus, since the USA doesn't have border controls between states, people could flood into the USA via California, which is unacceptable.
That doesn't work, though. California can't make decisions like that because it doesn't have jurisdiction over MAKING immigration law; only ENFORCING it. Plus, since the USA doesn't have border controls between states, people could flood into the USA via California, which is unacceptable.
I meant from a theoretical basis, since the proposal I was commenting on had to do with individuals and immigration. I was discussing this concept at the state level.
10 years for social security or 40 reporting periods working full time and there is a couple other conditions that can be met to collect SS. But for "means tested" benefits its 5 years
I think
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.
