Billionaires: It's good to import foreign workers

Jul 22, 2014 18:13:51 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Jul 22, 2014 1:59:38 GMT ShivaTD said:

When we send people to prison that have harmed no one and violated no one's rights what type of "moral education" is that? If we can send someone to prison for doing herion then why not send them to prison for drinking Coca Cola because Coca Cola isn't healthy to drink. We sent people to prison for smoking pot and sugar is more harmful than pot (a sugar overdose can kill you but no amount of pot will kill you). What type of moral education are se sending to young people when we imprison people just because we don't like what they do?

The "immigration numbers" don't reflect the real picture. Obama has more border agents and they have been moved into more effective positions to stop illegal immigration than former President Bush and that is a primary reason he's enforcement is superior to past adminstrations. The numbers don't reflect this but we know it's true. Additionally his prioritization to deport criminal aliens as opposed to shooting for more numbers by deporting harmless working "illegal" immigrants is far superior to past adminstrations that focused on the "low hanging fruit" that weren't the criminal aliens. I'd rather see one criminal alien deported than 10 illegal aliens standing out in front of Home Depot offering casual labor for homeowners. Wouldn't you? 

The problem with the children is certianly a serious one. My only suggestion is that if the children have family members in the US that are willing to support them then we should authorize the children to come here from their country (as opposed to at the border). It isn't a perfect solution but the most advantageous immigrant to America is a child that grows up (even partially) going to our schools and learning our culture. They really do make some of the best citizens of America.

You've mentioned that you'd prefer a single-payer system but that comes at the price of a complete take-over of all health insurance by the US government. All private and employer insurance would become basically void. I happen to oppose that.    

I do not believe that many individuals are imprisoned for their merely using marijuana--or even heroin. It is usually the pushers who are imprisoned; and rightfully so.

Your observation that the current immigration numbers "don't reflect the real picture" is almost reminiscent of some wit's observation (I forget, just now, who actually said it) that Wagner's music is "not as bad as it sounds."

On one level, it certainly seems to make sense to prioritize the deportation of those illegals who have a criminal record.  On another level, however, the fact remains that if we simply ignore all others--which is to say, if we ignore most illegal aliens--we will be complicit in the compromising of our national sovereignty.  And I do find that enormously troubling.   

Not going back to find the source but as I recall roughly 600,000 people are incarcerated for the simple possession of small amounts of "illegal drugs" where no other crimes were ever alledged. While slightly off topic I'd like to cite a story by Neil DeGrasse Tyson about his "jury duty" because the second situation deals with enforcement of our drug prohibition laws.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/jury-duty 

The first case is both humorous and a disgrace because a person highly qualified in the evaluation of "evidence" was excused from a panel that's supposed to make it's decision based upon evidence. The second exemplies the fact, at least anecdotally, that we prosecute people for simple possession of insignificant amounts of prohibited drugs and send them to prison. What moral message are we giving to our children of we send someone to prison for the simple possession of an amount of cocaine that weighs less than a dime?

This doesn't happen just once but instead it happens tens of thousands of times every year throughout the United States. To make matters worse because of documented racial bias by law enforcement and our criminal justice system the people being sent to prison are disproportionately black although whites and blacks have virtually identical statistics related to using illegal drugs.

We can't discount all of the numbers related to immigration but we do need to put them into perspective related to other factors.  For example we could simply state that the estimated numbers of illegal immigrants entering the US since Obama took office are signficantly less than during the same period in office under Bush and that would be accurate but it would also ignore the dramatic effects of the 2008-9 Recession that resulted in an exodus of undocumented aliens from the United States. I didn't state that the numbers should be ignored but instead that they need to be placed in perspective related to other factors.

The President is under fianancial constraints imposed by Congress when it comes to immigration control and deportation. Only about 400,000/yr can be processed through the courts and be deported based upon the funds available. President Obama chooses to use those funds to target criminal aliens that actually cost more to capture and deport than undocumented aliens sittng outside of Home Depot looking for casual labor. I support that prioritization in the use of the funds allocated by Congress even though it can result in fewer overall deportations. Don't you? Or is the undocumented immigrant sitting outside of Home Depot more important to deport than a Mexican drug dealer or Honduras rapist? Where would you place a person that was brought to the United States at perhaps 5 years old by their parents on your priority list?

If you could only afford to process and deport 400,000 out of 11 million or so undocumented immigrants who would you focus on?

Jul 23, 2014 23:44:49 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your final question poses a false alternative. I believe a majority of Americans would endorse our making funds available to deport as many illegals as possible. (Although, in my opinion, the ultimate solution is not just deportation--would we really be likely to round up and deport 11 million or so illegals, regardless of the cost?--but really tough employer sanctions, coupled with a difficult-to-counterfeit identification card, without which one simply could not obtain legal employment in the US.) 

I agree that the term, "1,700 milligrams" instead of simply 1.7 grams, is clearly intended to make it appear that the amount of cocaine found was much greater than it really was.  It is a bit like one's stating that a person who is just 10 pounds overweight is 160 ounces overweight.  (You claim that the prosecution of small-time users in the US continues to be ubiquitous. I do not know this to be the case--in fact, my understanding is precisely the opposite--but I would, in any event, not support such prosecutions.)    

I don't know if you were ever involved in business management or sports like auto racing but there is something we refer to as diminishing returns. The costs are not linear related to results but instead are exponential. It can cost $1 to accomplish something but to accomplish twice as much costs $4. To accomplish 3-times as much cost $9. The increased costs are exponential to obtain the results because the "low hanging fruit" that costs the least to address is the first results obtained.

Now I don't know how much we spend to deport the average 400,000 illegal aliens that are predominately criminals but let me just hazard a guess that it might be $20 billion (about $50,000/person which is probably reasonable all things considered). Yes, we could try to deport 800,000 illegal aliens but now the cost would be $400 billion and 800,000 doesn't really change the "illegal" immigration problem for America. If we attempted to deport 1.6 million illegal immigrants in a single year it would cost $6.4 trillion because of the "diminishing returns" as it become harder and locate and process individuals for deportation. As noted the costs are exponential and not linear which is why they skyrocket as we try to double or quadrupal the number of people being deported.

Considering that we don't have any excess federal revenue, and that we're actually running deficits, all of the additional $60 billion would be funded by borrowing and increasing the national debt!!! To advocate more spending for deportation is to advocate for more deficit spending because any additional spending is always deficit spending regardless of B/S accounting practices.   

Not even the American People would be willing to spend the money necessary to significantly increase the number of deportations if they knew the actual costs involved. Would any member of the Tea Party advocate $6.4 trillion in deficit spending to deport 1.6 million illegal aliens, less that 20% of the illegal aliens but that would be a significant percentage, in a single year? I seriously doubt that but that's what it would probably cost. Would you advocate it? I sure as hell wouldn't. I wouldn't even advocate spending $400 billion to deport 800,000 illegal immigrants because I oppose increasing the deficit just to deport immigrants filling jobs that need to be done in America.  

************

If you oppose the type of prosecution I cited, which is actually the most common prosecution for illegal drugs, then how can you support our current drug laws that make mere possession a felony?

Jul 25, 2014 0:14:30 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Taking the latter question first, I really do not believe that it should be a felony to merely possess illegal drugs (unless they are possessed in a sufficient quantity to make it very likely that they are being held for resale). 

As to the other matter at hand, I have noted previously that the real solution to the problem is not mass deportation, but a hard-to-counterfeit ID card, coupled with really stringent employer sanctions:  Any employer who has been found to have employed one or more illegals should have his or her business shut down for a period of several weeks, for a first offense; and shut dowm permanently for any subsequent offense within a period of, say, five years. 

Try defining what a sufficient quantity for resale is. Since it no longer matters because I'm retired I will admit that I've smoked marijuana since the 1960's but I've not engaged in the resale of marijuana. At times I would purchase a 1/4 lb to a lb because of the price break that purchasing larger quantities provided and so I had a lot that would last me a very long time that also reduced the number of times I had to purchase pot annually. A 1/4 lb and a lb of marijuana are both quantities often purchased by "street dealers" for sale.

When I worked in the concert business in the early 1970's the promoter often provided cocaine as a "fringe benefit" for the major rock groups. It was purchased by the 1/4 lb or more because they went through a lot of cocaine. None of it was for "resale" but this was certainly amounts that could have been resold by street dealers. Once agian it was about a large purchase because of the price break but it was for personal use and not for resale.

The line between "personal use" and "resale" is really a fuzzy line and, of course, the small time dealer isn't involved in any crime that violates the rights of another person typically. They don't carry guns, they don't engage in gang wars, they simply provide a (black market) service to the consumer. The primary problem is that because it's the black market there's no regulation so no age restrictions can be imposed on the sales.

Are you aware of the fact that "conservatives" opposed a national ID card during the 1960's? Are you aware of the fact that your proposal results in employment become a privilege allowed by government as opposed to a Right of the Person? You rebel against "statist" solutions and yet you propose one of the most severe government interventions into the personal lives of the people ever proposed. It borders on the requirements of the former USSR were the government could demand that every person "show their papers" on demand without any "cause" being established. It's a "Police State" proposition which is why conservatives opposed it in the 1960's.

You are aware of that aren't you?

Jul 25, 2014 23:35:06 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Jul 25, 2014 11:55:03 GMT ShivaTD said:

Try defining what a sufficient quantity for resale is. Since it no longer matters because I'm retired I will admit that I've smoked marijuana since the 1960's but I've not engaged in the resale of marijuana. At times I would purchase a 1/4 lb to a lb because of the price break that purchasing larger quantities provided and so I had a lot that would last me a very long time that also reduced the number of times I had to purchase pot annually. A 1/4 lb and a lb of marijuana are both quantities often purchased by "street dealers" for sale.

When I worked in the concert business in the early 1970's the promoter often provided cocaine as a "fringe benefit" for the major rock groups. It was purchased by the 1/4 lb or more because they went through a lot of cocaine. None of it was for "resale" but this was certainly amounts that could have been resold by street dealers. Once agian it was about a large purchase because of the price break but it was for personal use and not for resale.

The line between "personal use" and "resale" is really a fuzzy line and, of course, the small time dealer isn't involved in any crime that violates the rights of another person typically. They don't carry guns, they don't engage in gang wars, they simply provide a (black market) service to the consumer. The primary problem is that because it's the black market there's no regulation so no age restrictions can be imposed on the sales.

Are you aware of the fact that "conservatives" opposed a national ID card during the 1960's? Are you aware of the fact that your proposal results in employment become a privilege allowed by government as opposed to a Right of the Person? You rebel against "statist" solutions and yet you propose one of the most severe government interventions into the personal lives of the people ever proposed. It borders on the requirements of the former USSR were the government could demand that every person "show their papers" on demand without any "cause" being established. It's a "Police State" proposition which is why conservatives opposed it in the 1960's.

You are aware of that aren't you?

 

I am certainly aware of the fact that many of my fellow conservatives--and just about all libertarians--oppose this solution.

Still, it would probably be better to address the proposal on its merits, rather than to merely argue that its past associations have been unseemly.  That is really not a logical argument.   

I agree that it is rather difficult to define exactly the quantity of any illegal drug that could make us certain that it is intended for resale.  Still, I would favor a reasonable amount's being established--even if somewhat arbitrarily--and casual users being forewarned, therefore, that they really should not exceed that limit, even if their doing so would result in a price-per-unit reduction.   

There is a fundamental problem with E-Verify (or any employment verification system). They make mistakes. Remember that everyone, citizen and immigrant, would have to be subjected to the verification of their "legal qualification" to work in the United States and an error would deny them employment. Currently the error rate for E-Verify is about 4% from what I understand and that would deny about 8,000 people a month employment based upon just 200,000 new jobs being created monthy. This causes financial harm to those denied employment that could be very extensive. For example an technical worker that would possibly earn $8,000/mo could lose out on a job that would provide them years of income. They could be one of the long term unemployed in desparate need of a job and could lose their home to foreclosure if denied the job.

Who's going to pay for the mistakes?

Not only did "conservatives" oppose the national ID law they also opposed employers being de facto immigration agents in the 1960's. 

Of course if we allowed legal immigration for peaceful purposes, as supported by the founders of America, then this problem simpy doesn't exist.

As for drug prohibition laws most studies indicate that they haven't reduced drug usage in the United States one iota. Any suggested "benefits" from the prohibitions laws are false because they've never been a deterent to the use of illegal drugs (and could actually encourage use just like alcohol prohibition actually resulted in many people drinking because it was socially "cool" to go to the speakeasy).   

Black markets are unregulated markets and it's far better to regulate a "harmful market" (e.g. alcohol) than it is to have that business conducted on the black market. It is really worth the gang wars in our inner cities where violence to control the drug trade that funds the gangs is common? How many drive-by shootings will it take until it's one too many?

Jul 27, 2014 0:27:24 GMT pjohns1873 said:

If there is currently an error rate of four percent as regarding E-Verify--and I do not know if this is actually the case; is it possible, at least, that this number may be bandied about uncritically by opponents of it?--that should certainly be improved.  Why just abandon the fundamental idea of E-Verify entirely?

It is certainly true that black markets create some harmful side effects.  But that (taken just by itself) ignores all the counter-reasons for preferring to ban harmful substances.  (Note:  Alcohol--which is legal; and which is frequently compared with other drugs in this regard--would almost surely not be leglized today, if we were starting from scratch.  It became legal in a much earlier era; and its prohibition, therefore--less than a full century ago--was a disaster.)   

Any form of identification can be forged where a common person can't tell that it's a forgery. So we could create a nation ID card and all it would result in is counterfeiters producing that ID. Hell, fake drivers licenses were easy to obtain when I was a teenager so that we could buy beer and, as I recall, they cost about $25. They wouldn't have fooled law enforcement but they were good enough to be used at the local liquor store.

All your proposal would result in is a huge market in fake ID's by illegal immigrants that they'd use to obtain employment.

Marijuana, opium (heroin and it's other derivatives), peyote, and cocaine have been around and used throughout recorded history. It is true that we've invented some artificial substances that are similar in effect to natural substances (e.g. LSD was just another hallucinogenic drug similar to those found in nature) but we can really find alternatives to all of them in nature. What we're really trying to do is "ban nature" and that is fundamentally impossible.

Jul 27, 2014 22:58:55 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Just because something is found in "nature" does not automatically make it okay. Poisonous mushrooms--just to offer one example--are certainly natural enough.

I am not certain that it would be possible to invent an impossible-to-counterfeit ID card.  But it should be possible to invent a difficult-to-counterfeit ID card--perhaps using a hologram. (Our paper money, for instance, has been made increasingly difficult to counterfeit. That has not stopped counterfeiters from trying. But it is also no reasonable argument against the existence of paper money.)

Poisonous mushrooms are not illegal to possess but non-poisonous psilocybin mushrooms are. Logically if we were going to ban any mushrooms we'd ban the poisonous mushrooms and not the non-poisonous mushrooms but we don't.  

It's hard to counterfeit US currency where it passes inspection by the Secret Service or Bank Inspectors that are trained but it's relatively easy to counterfeit US currency that can pass a casual inspection at a retail store. Add to that fact that the "employer" may not especially care about whether the ID is fake or not as all they're responsible for is "checking" it and the ID doesn't mean a damn thing really. We couldn't prosecute the employer for being a "poor judge" of fake ID.