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.
Where are you getting your information? I've been involved with the TEA Party since '09, and I've never heard that.
The TEA Party is about three things:
Smaller government
Fiscal responsibility
Free market
Did you notice? Immigration wasn't on that list. Do people involved in the movement have an opinion on it? Sure. Everyone has an opinion about everything. But what defines the TEA Party as a movement is a focus on the three things I listed above.
I think you REALLY need to stop watching/listening to all of the propagandists that are against the TEA Party movement for purely political reasons. They make sh*t up, you know, and you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors by accepting what they say at face value.
you are right, I need to stop listening to all that propaganda and stop reading all those liberal sites like these:
You're not going to get anywhere. The POSTER was making it up, because the only argument they have is that the TP people are defective, not that what they want is.
you are right, i'm making this up. Why don't I let somebody else speak the truth:
Yup. It has been explained to you that the uniting factor that brought about the TP movement was taxes, debt, and spending. That OTHER people get it wrong is NOT my fault, nor anyone involved in it, and instead, make it up and then go looking for someone to agree with you.
There are people in the TP for whom immigration may be the most important - and there are at least some on both sides of the matter. There are some for whom it is a non-issue. I'm sure the majority is against continuing to fail to enforce our border security. Just as I'm sure the majority is against pedophilia and drunk driving. However, you have yet to accuse them of being "against drunk driving". Which means your argument is bunk.
Yup. It has been explained to you that the uniting factor that brought about the TP movement was taxes, debt, and spending. That OTHER people get it wrong is NOT my fault, nor anyone involved in it, and instead, make it up and then go looking for someone to agree with you.
There are people in the TP for whom immigration may be the most important - and there are at least some on both sides of the matter. There are some for whom it is a non-issue. I'm sure the majority is against continuing to fail to enforce our border security. Just as I'm sure the majority is against pedophilia and drunk driving. However, you have yet to accuse them of being "against drunk driving". Which means your argument is bunk.
I've made the mistake of making this into a broader argument. Whether you are for or against immigration in general is bedsides the point. I'm merely talking about one of the arguments used by the tea party when it comes to being against immigration. Jeff Sessions points out, if we give legal status to illegal immigrants, it will be cheap labor for companies, my whole question has been, why is that a problem for you? If companies want to hire people for as cheap as possible, that is the free market.
I've made the mistake of making this into a broader argument. Whether you are for or against immigration in general is bedsides the point. I'm merely talking about one of the arguments used by the tea party when it comes to being against immigration. Jeff Sessions points out, if we give legal status to illegal immigrants, it will be cheap labor for companies, my whole question has been, why is that a problem for you? If companies want to hire people for as cheap as possible, that is the free market.
GAWD, it's like talking to a rock.
The TP is not about immigration. It's about taxes, debts, spending (and regulation). If you want to argue that some person is against the immigration bill, then, great. Stop mixing unrelated things into it.
The TP is not about immigration. It's about taxes, debts, spending (and regulation). If you want to argue that some person is against the immigration bill, then, great. Stop mixing unrelated things into it.
You are right, it is like talking to a rock. forget about immigration, this is about free markets. If congress says that 11-20 illegal immigrants now have legal status and companies hire them because they are willing to work for cheaper wages, why is that a bad thing?
You are right, it is like talking to a rock. forget about immigration, this is about free markets. If congress says that 11-20 illegal immigrants now have legal status and companies hire them because they are willing to work for cheaper wages, why is that a bad thing?
Because it would be really stupid of Congress. We've done this before, you know. All it did was provide greater incentive to enter illegally - and by definition admit and tolerate lawbreakers.
As for companies to hire? They're free to hire anyone legal, and should be free to negotiate WHATEVER deal they and the person agree to, without interference.
Because it would be really stupid of Congress. We've done this before, you know. All it did was provide greater incentive to enter illegally - and by definition admit and tolerate lawbreakers.
As for companies to hire? They're free to hire anyone legal, and should be free to negotiate WHATEVER deal they and the person agree to, without interference.
Whether you think its stupid or not is irrelevant to my question. When the topic of immigration is brought up, one of the arguments that is used by people (I know there are multiple reasons why people are against immigration), is that if illegals are granted amnesty, companies will hire them and depress wages. The question I've been trying to get answered so far is, why is that one of the arguments against immigration, when in the next breath, you claim to be for free markets. Worrying about wage suppression from companies seems to contradict the views of the free market.
Whether you think its stupid or not is irrelevant to my question. When the topic of immigration is brought up, one of the arguments that is used by people (I know there are multiple reasons why people are against immigration), is that if illegals are granted amnesty, companies will hire them and depress wages. The question I've been trying to get answered so far is, why is that one of the arguments against immigration, when in the next breath, you claim to be for free markets. Worrying about wage suppression from companies seems to contradict the views of the free market.
: smack::s mack::sm ack:
GAWD!!!
It's like you're a brick wall!!! Where did I argue about "depressing wages"? I did not. So, please don't accuse me of inconsistency, when what you're REALLY doing is taking arguments from DIFFERENT people, lumping them together and demanding yet someone explain the inconsistency, when it was YOU who made the inconsistency exist.
Does an influx of labor lower wages? Yes or no?
Does a "free market" have anything to do with failing to secure the borders? Yes or no?
If you can answer those, great. If you can't, then debate the merits of each idea. But mixing them into some jumble and demanding inconsistencies be explained is absurd.
I have yet to be able to understand this logic that comes from the tea party. The tea party says they stand for free markets and limited government, but one of their arguments for being against immigration is that companies will hire cheap labor and drive down wages. Maybe i'm not understanding, but isn't that a textbook definition of the free markets? if somebody is willing to work for less, they have a better chance of getting a job. Why do you care if a company will higher cheaper labor? What is the difference between arguing for a minimum wage hike (which you hate), and arguing that companies will drive down wages if immigration becomes law. If you are going to be for free markets, this is potential result of it. Am I missing something?
P.S. just so we are clear, I know you are against immigration for multiple reasons, so lets not have this thread hijacked talking about immigration in general.
TP is not a libertarian movement. It's an establishment movement. It's nothing more than a political coalition.
Most self described libertarians in the US are pro immigration. I believe the Koch Bros are for open borders. The Reason Foundation and the CATO Institute have been candid with their free immigration stance for a good while now.
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.
