|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 6, 2014 11:36:08 GMT
I cannot assert, with any confidence, that government "mandates" will never be "expand[ed]," as they very often are. But that is a separate subject. The fact that US currency is still counterfeited, despite the built-in safeguards against counterfeiting, is really no argument in favor of your position. In fact, quite the opposite: The law against counterfeiting still stands; and US currency (of the legal variety) is still being printed. If there are, say, 200 million working-age Americans in the US--and I am merely venturing a guess here--and if the enhanced Social Security card for each would cost $200, that would result in a total cost of $40 billion. Not exactly pocket change, to be sure. But not an enormous percentage of America's total annual budget, either. And it would surely be possible to find offsets--spending that might be pared--in order for the federal government to issue these cards, at no charge.
You are willing to spend $40 billion for something that will be ineffective (because of counterfieting and employers that don't really care) in support of immigration laws that violate the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person to immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes in express opposition to the ideals expressed by the Founders of America such as Jefferson, Madison, and Washington.
My solution is much more simple and is based upon the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person where they can freely work in the United States which has always been historically beneficial to both the "Person" and the "Nation" throughout American history.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 6, 2014 23:28:47 GMT
I cannot assert, with any confidence, that government "mandates" will never be "expand[ed]," as they very often are. But that is a separate subject. The fact that US currency is still counterfeited, despite the built-in safeguards against counterfeiting, is really no argument in favor of your position. In fact, quite the opposite: The law against counterfeiting still stands; and US currency (of the legal variety) is still being printed. If there are, say, 200 million working-age Americans in the US--and I am merely venturing a guess here--and if the enhanced Social Security card for each would cost $200, that would result in a total cost of $40 billion. Not exactly pocket change, to be sure. But not an enormous percentage of America's total annual budget, either. And it would surely be possible to find offsets--spending that might be pared--in order for the federal government to issue these cards, at no charge.
You are willing to spend $40 billion for something that will be ineffective (because of counterfieting and employers that don't really care) in support of immigration laws that violate the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person to immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes in express opposition to the ideals expressed by the Founders of America such as Jefferson, Madison, and Washington.
My solution is much more simple and is based upon the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person where they can freely work in the United States which has always been historically beneficial to both the "Person" and the "Nation" throughout American history.
I think that your assertion that I would be willing to spend money for an "ineffective" solution is what is known as the petitio principii fallacy (or circular reasoning): It contains the conclusion within its premise. Some people call it begging the question.
Yes, immigration has historically been "beneficial" to the US. Emblematic of this immigration was Ellis Island (which was in its heyday about 100 years ago). But, of course, that was immigration of the legal variety. And it predated the welfare state in America. Moreover, those coming to America really wanted to be Americans--not merely to work in a country that afforded them greater benefits, and then send much of that earned money home. And you continue to insist upon a view of "the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" that demands that the US may have no control over its own borders (except to deny entry to those whose intent does not appear to be "peaceful"); and this, despite the fact that no country in the twenty-first century--remember, this is not still the Age of Discovery--is capable of being infinitely elastic. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 7, 2014 9:28:37 GMT
I think that your assertion that I would be willing to spend money for an "ineffective" solution is what is known as the petitio principii fallacy (or circular reasoning): It contains the conclusion within its premise. Some people call it begging the question.
Yes, immigration has historically been "beneficial" to the US. Emblematic of this immigration was Ellis Island (which was in its heyday about 100 years ago). But, of course, that was immigration of the legal variety. And it predated the welfare state in America. Moreover, those coming to America really wanted to be Americans--not merely to work in a country that afforded them greater benefits, and then send much of that earned money home. And you continue to insist upon a view of "the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" that demands that the US may have no control over its own borders (except to deny entry to those whose intent does not appear to be "peaceful"); and this, despite the fact that no country in the twenty-first century--remember, this is not still the Age of Discovery--is capable of being infinitely elastic.
I would think that creating a problem (i.e. prohibitions against legal immigration) and then throwing money at it that will have virtually no impact is a foolish waste of taxpayer money.
We don't need to be infinitely elastic as we can tie lawful immigration to employment. In short an immigrant must maintian employment (or be the dependent of a working immigrant) to retain legal immigration status. As studies have shown even unskilled "illegal" immigrant workers pay more in taxation than their families receive in government benefits.
It's hard for me to believe that you'd present an argument based upon what a person might choose to do with part of their earned income (e.g. send a few dollars to their relatives living in a foreign country). Why not also ban US charities that spend money in foreign countries as well? What about milti-millionaires that have moved hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign countries?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 7, 2014 22:37:38 GMT
I think that your assertion that I would be willing to spend money for an "ineffective" solution is what is known as the petitio principii fallacy (or circular reasoning): It contains the conclusion within its premise. Some people call it begging the question.
Yes, immigration has historically been "beneficial" to the US. Emblematic of this immigration was Ellis Island (which was in its heyday about 100 years ago). But, of course, that was immigration of the legal variety. And it predated the welfare state in America. Moreover, those coming to America really wanted to be Americans--not merely to work in a country that afforded them greater benefits, and then send much of that earned money home. And you continue to insist upon a view of "the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" that demands that the US may have no control over its own borders (except to deny entry to those whose intent does not appear to be "peaceful"); and this, despite the fact that no country in the twenty-first century--remember, this is not still the Age of Discovery--is capable of being infinitely elastic.
I would think that creating a problem (i.e. prohibitions against legal immigration) and then throwing money at it that will have virtually no impact is a foolish waste of taxpayer money.
We don't need to be infinitely elastic as we can tie lawful immigration to employment. In short an immigrant must maintian employment (or be the dependent of a working immigrant) to retain legal immigration status. As studies have shown even unskilled "illegal" immigrant workers pay more in taxation than their families receive in government benefits.
It's hard for me to believe that you'd present an argument based upon what a person might choose to do with part of their earned income (e.g. send a few dollars to their relatives living in a foreign country). Why not also ban US charities that spend money in foreign countries as well? What about milti-millionaires that have moved hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign countries?
Those "multi-millionaires" who have "moved hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign countries" (which begs the question: How many "multi-millionaires" even have "hundreds of billions of dollars"?) have usually done so for the purpose of avoiding the confiscatory tax rates imposed in the US, in favor of lower rates elsewhere. Besides which, your argument in this regard is a mere diversion. It is my understanding that many illegals in America do not merely send "a few dollars" back home--and they do consider Mexico, not America, their true home--but rather, send back a large portion of each paycheck. Again, you are arguing in a circle when you express (feigned) disbelief that I would present a solution that "will have virtually no impact," and is "a foolish waste of taxpayer money." In other words, you (gratuitously) assume this conclusion within your premises. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 8, 2014 9:34:19 GMT
Those "multi-millionaires" who have "moved hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign countries" (which begs the question: How many "multi-millionaires" even have "hundreds of billions of dollars"?) have usually done so for the purpose of avoiding the confiscatory tax rates imposed in the US, in favor of lower rates elsewhere. Besides which, your argument in this regard is a mere diversion. It is my understanding that many illegals in America do not merely send "a few dollars" back home--and they do consider Mexico, not America, their true home--but rather, send back a large portion of each paycheck. Again, you are arguing in a circle when you express (feigned) disbelief that I would present a solution that "will have virtually no impact," and is "a foolish waste of taxpayer money." In other words, you (gratuitously) assume this conclusion within your premises.
The "hundreds of billions of dollars" are cummulative and, in fact, is probably related more to owning homes in foreign countries or spending money in foreign countries than in having a relationship to investments. That isn't to say that there aren't those that don't move their investments overseas to avoid taxation but that generally relates to the top 0.1% taking full advantage of the capital gains tax loophole (that I oppose) while simply spending money in foreign countries probably relates to ten times as many wealthy Americans.
It's mathmatically impossible for a low income earner to send a significant amount of their paycheck anywhere. Virtually all of their income is spent on just surviving in the US. Of course they don't have to send a significant amount home because a dollar goes a lot further in many foreign countries than it does here and, of course, even this happening is highly exaggerated. While I've never read a study on it I'd bet that over 80% of immigrants don't send any money to their relatives or if they do it's to their spouse for their own direct family support because we won't allow their family to join them here in the United States.
Do you really believe that requiring a national ID that can easily be forged and presented to US employers (that really don't care) would have any significant impact? I don't know about you but when I grew up obtaining a fake drivers license was so easy that many at my high school had them to purchase beer and we never lacked for beer at our parties. Someone always had the fake ID to make a beer run.
As even you must admit if the "employee" presents an ID and the employer (that doesn't really care) hires them the employer cannot be held responsible for the fact that the ID is a forgery. You also can't dispute the fact that I would personally hate to be forced to have a national ID card to obtain employment. Why should the US government force me, a natural born American, to have an ID? Why should my right to obtain employment be restricted by a draconian law that would violate my Right of Liberty?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 8, 2014 16:49:43 GMT
Those "multi-millionaires" who have "moved hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign countries" (which begs the question: How many "multi-millionaires" even have "hundreds of billions of dollars"?) have usually done so for the purpose of avoiding the confiscatory tax rates imposed in the US, in favor of lower rates elsewhere. Besides which, your argument in this regard is a mere diversion. It is my understanding that many illegals in America do not merely send "a few dollars" back home--and they do consider Mexico, not America, their true home--but rather, send back a large portion of each paycheck. Again, you are arguing in a circle when you express (feigned) disbelief that I would present a solution that "will have virtually no impact," and is "a foolish waste of taxpayer money." In other words, you (gratuitously) assume this conclusion within your premises.
The "hundreds of billions of dollars" are cummulative and, in fact, is probably related more to owning homes in foreign countries or spending money in foreign countries than in having a relationship to investments. That isn't to say that there aren't those that don't move their investments overseas to avoid taxation but that generally relates to the top 0.1% taking full advantage of the capital gains tax loophole (that I oppose) while simply spending money in foreign countries probably relates to ten times as many wealthy Americans.
It's mathmatically impossible for a low income earner to send a significant amount of their paycheck anywhere. Virtually all of their income is spent on just surviving in the US. Of course they don't have to send a significant amount home because a dollar goes a lot further in many foreign countries than it does here and, of course, even this happening is highly exaggerated. While I've never read a study on it I'd bet that over 80% of immigrants don't send any money to their relatives or if they do it's to their spouse for their own direct family support because we won't allow their family to join them here in the United States.
Do you really believe that requiring a national ID that can easily be forged and presented to US employers (that really don't care) would have any significant impact? I don't know about you but when I grew up obtaining a fake drivers license was so easy that many at my high school had them to purchase beer and we never lacked for beer at our parties. Someone always had the fake ID to make a beer run.
As even you must admit if the "employee" presents an ID and the employer (that doesn't really care) hires them the employer cannot be held responsible for the fact that the ID is a forgery. You also can't dispute the fact that I would personally hate to be forced to have a national ID card to obtain employment. Why should the US government force me, a natural born American, to have an ID? Why should my right to obtain employment be restricted by a draconian law that would violate my Right of Liberty?
Your opposition to "wealthy Americans" spending a bit of thir own money "in foreign countries" is duly noted. (Personally, I would not care to have our government instructing Americans--and not just "wealthy" ones, either, but many middle-class Americans--that they may not spend any of their money overseas.) I would agree that most illegals who send money back to Mexico are sending that money "to their spouse ." So what? (Your assertion that this is the result of the fact that the US "won't allow" their respective families to come here simply parrots the Democratic line that American immigration ought to be based upon the best interests of the potential immigrants, rather than upon the best interests of this country.)
And you claim that the typical reports of illegals sending money back to Mexico are "highly exaggerated"--but without any supporting evidence.
Perhaps that "fake drivers license" was "easily...forged" when you were an adolescent. I can certainly believe that. But I doubt that it contained a hologram.
And of course the employer can be held legally responsible for hiring an illegal with a fake ID--just as the owners of establishments that sell beer, wine, and liquor can currently be held responsible for selling alcohol to minors.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 9, 2014 11:42:34 GMT
Your opposition to "wealthy Americans" spending a bit of thir own money "in foreign countries" is duly noted. (Personally, I would not care to have our government instructing Americans--and not just "wealthy" ones, either, but many middle-class Americans--that they may not spend any of their money overseas.) I would agree that most illegals who send money back to Mexico are sending that money "to their spouse ." So what? (Your assertion that this is the result of the fact that the US "won't allow" their respective families to come here simply parrots the Democratic line that American immigration ought to be based upon the best interests of the potential immigrants, rather than upon the best interests of this country.)
And you claim that the typical reports of illegals sending money back to Mexico are "highly exaggerated"--but without any supporting evidence.
Perhaps that "fake drivers license" was "easily...forged" when you were an adolescent. I can certainly believe that. But I doubt that it contained a hologram.
And of course the employer can be held legally responsible for hiring an illegal with a fake ID--just as the owners of establishments that sell beer, wine, and liquor can currently be held responsible for selling alcohol to minors.
The claim that Mexicans send a significant amount of income to family members in Mexico is pure hearsay and yet you seem to believe that I have some obligation to disprove hearsay? Seriously?
Allowing peaceful immigration has been beneficial to the United States since the nation was founded and that has not changed one iota. The two complaints against it are fabrications upon review.
1) They fill job openings but they create more jobs than they fill. 2) They use government benefits but they pay more in taxes than the benefits cost.
There is only one thing that hasn't changed and that is historically all immigration restrictions were invidiously crafted to deny immigration upon race, religion or ethnic background to prevent non-WASP's from immigrating to the United States. I know that is something that you seem to not want to recognize as a fact but it is a fact nonetheless.
I would ask you a hypothetical question. Let's assume that applications for immigration exceeded how many people we could allow to move here by 20%. What if we blocked 20% of all applicants from every country from immigrating instead of just blocking just Hispanics from immigrating? That would be a historic first because we've never imposed any quota on British immigration that actually denied someone from the UK from immigrating to the United States. Do you believe that such a proposal would actually pass in Congress?
I wouldn't bet a wooden nickle on such a restriction ever been passed by Congress where the denial of immigration actually blocked WASP immigration.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 10, 2014 1:34:45 GMT
Your opposition to "wealthy Americans" spending a bit of thir own money "in foreign countries" is duly noted. (Personally, I would not care to have our government instructing Americans--and not just "wealthy" ones, either, but many middle-class Americans--that they may not spend any of their money overseas.) I would agree that most illegals who send money back to Mexico are sending that money "to their spouse ." So what? (Your assertion that this is the result of the fact that the US "won't allow" their respective families to come here simply parrots the Democratic line that American immigration ought to be based upon the best interests of the potential immigrants, rather than upon the best interests of this country.)
And you claim that the typical reports of illegals sending money back to Mexico are "highly exaggerated"--but without any supporting evidence.
Perhaps that "fake drivers license" was "easily...forged" when you were an adolescent. I can certainly believe that. But I doubt that it contained a hologram.
And of course the employer can be held legally responsible for hiring an illegal with a fake ID--just as the owners of establishments that sell beer, wine, and liquor can currently be held responsible for selling alcohol to minors.
The claim that Mexicans send a significant amount of income to family members in Mexico is pure hearsay and yet you seem to believe that I have some obligation to disprove hearsay? Seriously?
Allowing peaceful immigration has been beneficial to the United States since the nation was founded and that has not changed one iota. The two complaints against it are fabrications upon review.
1) They fill job openings but they create more jobs than they fill. 2) They use government benefits but they pay more in taxes than the benefits cost.
There is only one thing that hasn't changed and that is historically all immigration restrictions were invidiously crafted to deny immigration upon race, religion or ethnic background to prevent non-WASP's from immigrating to the United States. I know that is something that you seem to not want to recognize as a fact but it is a fact nonetheless.
I would ask you a hypothetical question. Let's assume that applications for immigration exceeded how many people we could allow to move here by 20%. What if we blocked 20% of all applicants from every country from immigrating instead of just blocking just Hispanics from immigrating? That would be a historic first because we've never imposed any quota on British immigration that actually denied someone from the UK from immigrating to the United States. Do you believe that such a proposal would actually pass in Congress?
I wouldn't bet a wooden nickle on such a restriction ever been passed by Congress where the denial of immigration actually blocked WASP immigration.
What you characterize as "pure hearsay" is what I have heard reported--repeatedly--on the news. The "peaceful immigration" that has historically "been beneficial to the United States" was conducted legally. (Again, Ellis Island was emblematic of it.) No, far from all immigrants have been WASPs. Think of all the Irish, Italians, Poles, et al. who immigrated to the US about 100 years ago. No, I certainly would not support the sort of quota you have proposed (i.e. an equal percentage of would-be-immigrants denied from each country, automatically, if the total immigrations exceed the annual quota). Rather, I believe that those accepted should be those considered most likely to be beneficial to the US, based upon their skills and/or education. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 10, 2014 9:33:32 GMT
What you characterize as "pure hearsay" is what I have heard reported--repeatedly--on the news. The "peaceful immigration" that has historically "been beneficial to the United States" was conducted legally. (Again, Ellis Island was emblematic of it.) No, far from all immigrants have been WASPs. Think of all the Irish, Italians, Poles, et al. who immigrated to the US about 100 years ago. No, I certainly would not support the sort of quota you have proposed (i.e. an equal percentage of would-be-immigrants denied from each country, automatically, if the total immigrations exceed the annual quota). Rather, I believe that those accepted should be those considered most likely to be beneficial to the US, based upon their skills and/or education.
I would suggest that you've heard those expressing political opinion on news media outlets claiming that immigrants send a significant percentage of their wages back to Mexico and that they provided nothing in the way of statistical evidence of this happening. I've never read of a single study that supports the allegation.
I challenge you to provide some actual evidence with facts and numbers.
We currently have about 11 million "illegal" immigrants in the United States today that are paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits and that their labor and spending in the United States creates more jobs than they fill and that is beneficial to the United States. Perhaps as many as 1 million of them are migrant farm workers where crops would rot in the field if they weren't here and that is beneficial to the United States. I've provided evidence that "illegal" immigrants are beneficial to the United States.
I challenge you to provide evidence that "illegal" immigrants are not beneficial to the United States.
Yes, we've allowed immigration of many different people to the United States but we've also blocked immigration to the United States where different races, ethnic groups, and people with certain religious beliefs were denied immigration but we've never restricted WASP immigration. WASP's are the only "group" that have never been prohibited to freely immigrating to the United States at anytime in the history of the United States.
So you embrace invidious discrimination in who's allowed to immigrate to the United States where WASP's, regardless of education or skills, are always beneficial while we can always find a rationalization to prohibit non-WASP immigration. In the past it was the Chinese or the Catholics that were "undesirable" and today it's the "Hispanics" that we rationalize denial of immigration to. I hate to tell you this but the "unskilled" laborer is just as valuable to the US economy as the college graduate and perhaps more because we have about 33% more college graduates in the United States than we have job openings for college graduates. Are you aware of the fact that New York City has more college graduates driving taxicabs than anywhere else in the world (sorry, I don't have the study on hand that established this fact but it is a fact).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 11, 2014 3:07:07 GMT
What you characterize as "pure hearsay" is what I have heard reported--repeatedly--on the news. The "peaceful immigration" that has historically "been beneficial to the United States" was conducted legally. (Again, Ellis Island was emblematic of it.) No, far from all immigrants have been WASPs. Think of all the Irish, Italians, Poles, et al. who immigrated to the US about 100 years ago. No, I certainly would not support the sort of quota you have proposed (i.e. an equal percentage of would-be-immigrants denied from each country, automatically, if the total immigrations exceed the annual quota). Rather, I believe that those accepted should be those considered most likely to be beneficial to the US, based upon their skills and/or education.
I would suggest that you've heard those expressing political opinion on news media outlets claiming that immigrants send a significant percentage of their wages back to Mexico and that they provided nothing in the way of statistical evidence of this happening. I've never read of a single study that supports the allegation.
I challenge you to provide some actual evidence with facts and numbers.
We currently have about 11 million "illegal" immigrants in the United States today that are paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits and that their labor and spending in the United States creates more jobs than they fill and that is beneficial to the United States. Perhaps as many as 1 million of them are migrant farm workers where crops would rot in the field if they weren't here and that is beneficial to the United States. I've provided evidence that "illegal" immigrants are beneficial to the United States.
I challenge you to provide evidence that "illegal" immigrants are not beneficial to the United States.
Yes, we've allowed immigration of many different people to the United States but we've also blocked immigration to the United States where different races, ethnic groups, and people with certain religious beliefs were denied immigration but we've never restricted WASP immigration. WASP's are the only "group" that have never been prohibited to freely immigrating to the United States at anytime in the history of the United States.
So you embrace invidious discrimination in who's allowed to immigrate to the United States where WASP's, regardless of education or skills, are always beneficial while we can always find a rationalization to prohibit non-WASP immigration. In the past it was the Chinese or the Catholics that were "undesirable" and today it's the "Hispanics" that we rationalize denial of immigration to. I hate to tell you this but the "unskilled" laborer is just as valuable to the US economy as the college graduate and perhaps more because we have about 33% more college graduates in the United States than we have job openings for college graduates. Are you aware of the fact that New York City has more college graduates driving taxicabs than anywhere else in the world (sorry, I don't have the study on hand that established this fact but it is a fact).
What I have heard stated as regarding illegals sending money back home was never labeled mere "opinion." Rather, it was presented as fact. (No, I do not have a "study" at hand to back it up. I try to read a bit each day--but not "stud[ies]," which are all too often designed to prove a preconceived viewpoint, anyway.) Your assertion that many crops "would rot in the field" if not for the labor of illegals parrots the leftist talking point that Americans (supposedly) just will not to manual labor at any price. I simply do not believe that to be the case. (In any event, I would have no problem with our instituting a guest-worker program.) No, I certainly do not "embrace invidious discrimination," as you have charged. Rather, I believe that any "discrimination" in our acceptance of potential immigrants should be based upon something meaningful (e.g. the education level and/or skillsets of the potential immigrants), rather than upon something superficial (e.g. race or ethnicity). The US already has plenty of unskilled workers. We really do not need to import more. But we can always use more scientists (of various varieties), information technicians, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 12, 2014 13:03:14 GMT
What I have heard stated as regarding illegals sending money back home was never labeled mere "opinion." Rather, it was presented as fact. (No, I do not have a "study" at hand to back it up. I try to read a bit each day--but not "stud[ies]," which are all too often designed to prove a preconceived viewpoint, anyway.) Your assertion that many crops "would rot in the field" if not for the labor of illegals parrots the leftist talking point that Americans (supposedly) just will not to manual labor at any price. I simply do not believe that to be the case. (In any event, I would have no problem with our instituting a guest-worker program.) No, I certainly do not "embrace invidious discrimination," as you have charged. Rather, I believe that any "discrimination" in our acceptance of potential immigrants should be based upon something meaningful (e.g. the education level and/or skillsets of the potential immigrants), rather than upon something superficial (e.g. race or ethnicity). The US already has plenty of unskilled workers. We really do not need to import more. But we can always use more scientists (of various varieties), information technicians, etc.
The forum was messed up yesterday and after trying to respond three times I gave up. Very annoying but let me try again.
Repeating propaganda based upon hearsay and half-truths often ends up being referred to as if it were fact but it's still not. Yes, there are some immigrants (not most) that do send some money to their families but even logic dictates that it can't be very much for a low paid worker that has to spend almost all of their income on food, ulitilities, rent, and other basic necessities. The statements you're heard where conservative pundits claim that immigrants send most or even a significant percentage of their money home to relatives is partisan propaganda that has been repeated so often people begin to believe it. There is no supportive evidence nor is it even logical.
Two years ago, when unemployment was still above 8%, roughly 1/3rd of the apple crop in Washington rotted on the trees because of a lack of immigrant workers. This isn't even low paying work because it's "piece work" where a person can earn over $20/hr but Americans won't work harvesting the apples. There are many, many different job types that Americans typically refuse to work at that are filled by immigrant laborers.
Working is "meaningful" regardless of what the job is. I offered a non-distriminatory immigration policy based upon a "meaningful" criteria and you rejected it instead seeking to impose your definition of what "meaningful" is. This practice has been used historically to target specific groups that were "non-WASP's" in the past and that practice continued today. It uses a rationalization that will exclude a "non-desireable" (i.e. non-WASP) that doesn't actually state that it's based upon racial, religious, or ethnic heritage criteria.
How about this for an analogy. I want to limit Republican voting and but I'm sneaky so I impose a test based upon scientific studies as a criteria to vote. Many Republicans simply disregard scientific studies choosing to ignore the results so they would likely fail such a test. I can effectively reduce the Republican vote through the use of a a test that I know more Republicans will fail than Democrats. I don't come out and state "Republicans" can't vote or that the test is based upon denying Republicans the Right to Vote but I can rationalize the test based upon the fact that "ignorant people" should not vote. It is nefarious and uses a bogus criteria that I invented but that I could support with argument.
Your applying your definition of "meaningful" is exactly the same as my use of "intelligence" but just applied in two different cases.
I hate the term "unskilled worker" because it's used in a prejorative manner. I would point out a fact that a nation can never have too many "unskilled workers" because "unskilled workers" create the jobs for "skilled workers" in an ecomony. I'll provide a single example that really applies across the board.
We have roughly 11 million "illegal" aliens in the United States and based upon a statistical analysis it requires about 26,000 medical doctors (plus tens of thousands of others) to provide them with the medical services they require. That's 26,000 high paying jobs in just one single profession that are created by these 11 million predominately low income households.
I find it ironic that Republicans would rather not have this driving force for the US to educate more medical doctors and medical professionals. Why are Republicans anti-job growth in the medical profession just because that job growth is being driven by Hispanics that come here to work in other professions that benefit the US economy and generate a net increase in taxation?
Think about the total job loss there would be if we deported 11 million people from the United States. It would be huge amounting to tens of millions Americans losing their jobs instantly. Truck drivers, retail clerks, and utility service people would lose their jobs. Even Walmarts would be forced to close in some locations because they would lose so many customers. The economic impact to the US would be worse than the 2008 Recession.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 12, 2014 23:26:08 GMT
What I have heard stated as regarding illegals sending money back home was never labeled mere "opinion." Rather, it was presented as fact. (No, I do not have a "study" at hand to back it up. I try to read a bit each day--but not "stud[ies]," which are all too often designed to prove a preconceived viewpoint, anyway.) Your assertion that many crops "would rot in the field" if not for the labor of illegals parrots the leftist talking point that Americans (supposedly) just will not to manual labor at any price. I simply do not believe that to be the case. (In any event, I would have no problem with our instituting a guest-worker program.) No, I certainly do not "embrace invidious discrimination," as you have charged. Rather, I believe that any "discrimination" in our acceptance of potential immigrants should be based upon something meaningful (e.g. the education level and/or skillsets of the potential immigrants), rather than upon something superficial (e.g. race or ethnicity). The US already has plenty of unskilled workers. We really do not need to import more. But we can always use more scientists (of various varieties), information technicians, etc.
The forum was messed up yesterday and after trying to respond three times I gave up. Very annoying but let me try again.
Repeating propaganda based upon hearsay and half-truths often ends up being referred to as if it were fact but it's still not. Yes, there are some immigrants (not most) that do send some money to their families but even logic dictates that it can't be very much for a low paid worker that has to spend almost all of their income on food, ulitilities, rent, and other basic necessities. The statements you're heard where conservative pundits claim that immigrants send most or even a significant percentage of their money home to relatives is partisan propaganda that has been repeated so often people begin to believe it. There is no supportive evidence nor is it even logical.
Two years ago, when unemployment was still above 8%, roughly 1/3rd of the apple crop in Washington rotted on the trees because of a lack of immigrant workers. This isn't even low paying work because it's "piece work" where a person can earn over $20/hr but Americans won't work harvesting the apples. There are many, many different job types that Americans typically refuse to work at that are filled by immigrant laborers.
Working is "meaningful" regardless of what the job is. I offered a non-distriminatory immigration policy based upon a "meaningful" criteria and you rejected it instead seeking to impose your definition of what "meaningful" is. This practice has been used historically to target specific groups that were "non-WASP's" in the past and that practice continued today. It uses a rationalization that will exclude a "non-desireable" (i.e. non-WASP) that doesn't actually state that it's based upon racial, religious, or ethnic heritage criteria.
How about this for an analogy. I want to limit Republican voting and but I'm sneaky so I impose a test based upon scientific studies as a criteria to vote. Many Republicans simply disregard scientific studies choosing to ignore the results so they would likely fail such a test. I can effectively reduce the Republican vote through the use of a a test that I know more Republicans will fail than Democrats. I don't come out and state "Republicans" can't vote or that the test is based upon denying Republicans the Right to Vote but I can rationalize the test based upon the fact that "ignorant people" should not vote. It is nefarious and uses a bogus criteria that I invented but that I could support with argument.
Your applying your definition of "meaningful" is exactly the same as my use of "intelligence" but just applied in two different cases.
I hate the term "unskilled worker" because it's used in a prejorative manner. I would point out a fact that a nation can never have too many "unskilled workers" because "unskilled workers" create the jobs for "skilled workers" in an ecomony. I'll provide a single example that really applies across the board.
We have roughly 11 million "illegal" aliens in the United States and based upon a statistical analysis it requires about 26,000 medical doctors (plus tens of thousands of others) to provide them with the medical services they require. That's 26,000 high paying jobs in just one single profession that are created by these 11 million predominately low income households.
I find it ironic that Republicans would rather not have this driving force for the US to educate more medical doctors and medical professionals. Why are Republicans anti-job growth in the medical profession just because that job growth is being driven by Hispanics that come here to work in other professions that benefit the US economy and generate a net increase in taxation?
Think about the total job loss there would be if we deported 11 million people from the United States. It would be huge amounting to tens of millions Americans losing their jobs instantly. Truck drivers, retail clerks, and utility service people would lose their jobs. Even Walmarts would be forced to close in some locations because they would lose so many customers. The economic impact to the US would be worse than the 2008 Recession.
In the first place, I simply cannot imagine that 11 million illegls might be systematically rounded up, and deported. (If we were to build a serious wall along the border throughout Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona--much as southern California already has--most Americans would probably be just fine with our allowing permanent residency, at least, to those 11 million people.) As for your anecdote as concerning the apple crop in Washington state a couple of years ago, I would imagine that a guest-worker program--which I have previously endorsed--would have solved that problem. Your (apparently) jaundiced view as concerning Americans in general--that we are mostly a bunch of unreconstructed bigots, who wish to exclude non-WASPs from coming to America by devising criteria that would have that end result--not only speaks to your condescending disdain for Americans in general, but also speaks to your views as regarding non-WASPs: You simply do not believve, apparently, that non-WASPs may be well educated and/or imbued with significant skillsets. And I disagree, And your referring to news reports (these were not mere panel discussions) as "partisan propaganda" and "hearsay" is not at all helpful. It just tells me that you reject all news stories that do not fit with your preconceived worldview--and prefer tendentious "studies" by the left, in their stead. (In any case, you have not addressed my central point in bringing up this matter, viz.: Many illegals have no visceral desire to become Americans; they simply prefer to reap the benefits of working in America, but have no sense of patriotism--which is routinely besmirched by the left--to this country.) Anyway, I'm sorry about the problem you experienced yesterday with the forum. I'm glad to see that everything is working better now, however. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 13, 2014 12:40:13 GMT
In the first place, I simply cannot imagine that 11 million illegls might be systematically rounded up, and deported. (If we were to build a serious wall along the border throughout Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona--much as southern California already has--most Americans would probably be just fine with our allowing permanent residency, at least, to those 11 million people.) As for your anecdote as concerning the apple crop in Washington state a couple of years ago, I would imagine that a guest-worker program--which I have previously endorsed--would have solved that problem. Your (apparently) jaundiced view as concerning Americans in general--that we are mostly a bunch of unreconstructed bigots, who wish to exclude non-WASPs from coming to America by devising criteria that would have that end result--not only speaks to your condescending disdain for Americans in general, but also speaks to your views as regarding non-WASPs: You simply do not believve, apparently, that non-WASPs may be well educated and/or imbued with significant skillsets. And I disagree, And your referring to news reports (these were not mere panel discussions) as "partisan propaganda" and "hearsay" is not at all helpful. It just tells me that you reject all news stories that do not fit with your preconceived worldview--and prefer tendentious "studies" by the left, in their stead. (In any case, you have not addressed my central point in bringing up this matter, viz.: Many illegals have no visceral desire to become Americans; they simply prefer to reap the benefits of working in America, but have no sense of patriotism--which is routinely besmirched by the left--to this country.) Anyway, I'm sorry about the problem you experienced yesterday with the forum. I'm glad to see that everything is working better now, however.
Like the founders of America I have a very low opinion of the common American when it comes to political ideology and knowledge. Most Americans don't even understand the political ideology upon which America was founded and wouldn't understand an "inalienable right" if it ran over them. I've been involved in different political forums for many years and the ignorance of the political ideology upon which America was founded as expressed by many on both the left and the right is so vast that it defies description in many cases. Is that an indictment of the average American? You bet it is and it is exactly what the founders of America feared the most.
Some opinions expressed on news outlets are confused with news reporting and there is a huge difference between the two. Some are so illogical as to be discarded immediately as being pure BS. How much extra money do you think someone earning $290/wk (fed. min. wage) has left over to send to someone else after they pay for their own living expenses?
The "border fense" doesn't prevent any illegal border crossings. Those intent upon entering the United States illegally will either go over it, around it (such as is the case in San Diego where the fense goes out into the Pacific and they just swim around it), or under it. In a test it took less than 60 seconds for a test group to go over a simulated border fense.
Yes, expanding our H-1B (temporary immigration work) program would probably address the picking of apples in WA but it doesn't address the tens of thousands of other jobs that immigrants fill and that are generally not seasonal farm work. Hundreds of billions of dollars of work is not being done and millions of American jobs that would exist if this work was done is being prevented by our quota system.
The United States has been a WASP racist nation since it's inception. That is not supported by our political ideology but instead is a fact related to the disregard of our national political ideology by the WASP's that have been in control of our government and our economy since it was created. Overcoming the invidiousness of racism and religion are two of the most critical challenges that have faced America since it was founded. We've made some progress in both regards but there is a long ways to go before we can claim to have achieved the ideology that was the foundation for America.
Yes, it is true that many that come to the United States for it's economic benefits don't have any desire to become US citizens. So what. Since when have we imposed a requirement that a person must become a US citizen to benefit from the US economy? There are millionaires and billionaire that achieved their wealth by exploiting the US economy as well as poor people that have never become US citizens. Of course their children born here are US citizens and these children have always been an asset to the United States.
BTW I'm very much opposed to our immigration laws that allow a wealthy person to virtually purchase US citizenship. I don't mind if they go through the same process that a poor person goes through to become a US citizen but to simply purchase US citizenship is flat out wrong IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 14, 2014 0:13:31 GMT
In the first place, I simply cannot imagine that 11 million illegls might be systematically rounded up, and deported. (If we were to build a serious wall along the border throughout Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona--much as southern California already has--most Americans would probably be just fine with our allowing permanent residency, at least, to those 11 million people.) As for your anecdote as concerning the apple crop in Washington state a couple of years ago, I would imagine that a guest-worker program--which I have previously endorsed--would have solved that problem. Your (apparently) jaundiced view as concerning Americans in general--that we are mostly a bunch of unreconstructed bigots, who wish to exclude non-WASPs from coming to America by devising criteria that would have that end result--not only speaks to your condescending disdain for Americans in general, but also speaks to your views as regarding non-WASPs: You simply do not believve, apparently, that non-WASPs may be well educated and/or imbued with significant skillsets. And I disagree, And your referring to news reports (these were not mere panel discussions) as "partisan propaganda" and "hearsay" is not at all helpful. It just tells me that you reject all news stories that do not fit with your preconceived worldview--and prefer tendentious "studies" by the left, in their stead. (In any case, you have not addressed my central point in bringing up this matter, viz.: Many illegals have no visceral desire to become Americans; they simply prefer to reap the benefits of working in America, but have no sense of patriotism--which is routinely besmirched by the left--to this country.) Anyway, I'm sorry about the problem you experienced yesterday with the forum. I'm glad to see that everything is working better now, however.
Like the founders of America I have a very low opinion of the common American when it comes to political ideology and knowledge. Most Americans don't even understand the political ideology upon which America was founded and wouldn't understand an "inalienable right" if it ran over them. I've been involved in different political forums for many years and the ignorance of the political ideology upon which America was founded as expressed by many on both the left and the right is so vast that it defies description in many cases. Is that an indictment of the average American? You bet it is and it is exactly what the founders of America feared the most.
Some opinions expressed on news outlets are confused with news reporting and there is a huge difference between the two. Some are so illogical as to be discarded immediately as being pure BS. How much extra money do you think someone earning $290/wk (fed. min. wage) has left over to send to someone else after they pay for their own living expenses?
The "border fense" doesn't prevent any illegal border crossings. Those intent upon entering the United States illegally will either go over it, around it (such as is the case in San Diego where the fense goes out into the Pacific and they just swim around it), or under it. In a test it took less than 60 seconds for a test group to go over a simulated border fense.
Yes, expanding our H-1B (temporary immigration work) program would probably address the picking of apples in WA but it doesn't address the tens of thousands of other jobs that immigrants fill and that are generally not seasonal farm work. Hundreds of billions of dollars of work is not being done and millions of American jobs that would exist if this work was done is being prevented by our quota system.
The United States has been a WASP racist nation since it's inception. That is not supported by our political ideology but instead is a fact related to the disregard of our national political ideology by the WASP's that have been in control of our government and our economy since it was created. Overcoming the invidiousness of racism and religion are two of the most critical challenges that have faced America since it was founded. We've made some progress in both regards but there is a long ways to go before we can claim to have achieved the ideology that was the foundation for America.
Yes, it is true that many that come to the United States for it's economic benefits don't have any desire to become US citizens. So what. Since when have we imposed a requirement that a person must become a US citizen to benefit from the US economy? There are millionaires and billionaire that achieved their wealth by exploiting the US economy as well as poor people that have never become US citizens. Of course their children born here are US citizens and these children have always been an asset to the United States.
BTW I'm very much opposed to our immigration laws that allow a wealthy person to virtually purchase US citizenship. I don't mind if they go through the same process that a poor person goes through to become a US citizen but to simply purchase US citizenship is flat out wrong IMHO.
Well, at least you are candid as regarding your "very low opinion" of most Americans' capacity for rational thought. (It is certainly true that there are some low-information types--and these gave Barack Obama his margin of victory in both 2008 and 2012--but to imagine that these represent Americans in general strikes me as being immensely elitist.) By the way, the Founders--whom you have enlisted in support of your elitist viewpoint--did not live in a society in which a four-year college degree (or even a high-school diploma) was the utterly ubiquitous matter that it is in 2014. As for the possible confusion of "opinions" with actual "news reporting"--well, nice try. But on FNC, at least (which I watch regularly), the two are kept entirely separate. For instance, on Special Report (which airs from 5:00 PM-6:00 PM CT--my own time zone), the first 40 minutes or so are devoted to hard news, whereas the remaining 20 minutes or so are devoted to a panel discussion, in which opinions are routinely offerred. Moreover, I am not at all certain that all illegals in the US are working for "minimum wage." However, even many of those who are may send part of their respective paycheks back home to Mexico. In any case, that is certainly what I have heard reported. Why would our having a robust guest-worker program have to exclude all but "seasonal" work? Contrary to your own suggestion, I have heard it reported on the news that the fence near San Diego (and Baja, California) has slowed illegal immigration there to a mere trickle; in fact, that it has almost stopped it completely. To assert that the US has been racist from the beginning is to miss the point. Yes, Thomas Jefferson had slaves (and even fathered a child by one of those slaves: Sally Hemmings). And Abraham Lincoln, a couple of generations later, made statements about black people that could easily have been the words of the Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan (which would actually not be formed until a little later, during the Reconstruction Era). Worse yet, Lincoln's words were not even uttered during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of the 1850s, but during his tenure as President of the United States, during the Civil War. But that has changed enormously since the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. So to lament "our national political ideology by the WASP's that have been in control of our government and our economy since it was created" begs the question: What would you wish to see changed, fundamentally, about out "government and our economy," if only you could wave a magic wand and accomplish it? Would you wish for America to more closely resemble Europe? Or Venezuela? Or what? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 14, 2014 9:43:09 GMT
Like the founders of America I have a very low opinion of the common American when it comes to political ideology and knowledge. Most Americans don't even understand the political ideology upon which America was founded and wouldn't understand an "inalienable right" if it ran over them. I've been involved in different political forums for many years and the ignorance of the political ideology upon which America was founded as expressed by many on both the left and the right is so vast that it defies description in many cases. Is that an indictment of the average American? You bet it is and it is exactly what the founders of America feared the most.
Some opinions expressed on news outlets are confused with news reporting and there is a huge difference between the two. Some are so illogical as to be discarded immediately as being pure BS. How much extra money do you think someone earning $290/wk (fed. min. wage) has left over to send to someone else after they pay for their own living expenses?
The "border fense" doesn't prevent any illegal border crossings. Those intent upon entering the United States illegally will either go over it, around it (such as is the case in San Diego where the fense goes out into the Pacific and they just swim around it), or under it. In a test it took less than 60 seconds for a test group to go over a simulated border fense.
Yes, expanding our H-1B (temporary immigration work) program would probably address the picking of apples in WA but it doesn't address the tens of thousands of other jobs that immigrants fill and that are generally not seasonal farm work. Hundreds of billions of dollars of work is not being done and millions of American jobs that would exist if this work was done is being prevented by our quota system.
The United States has been a WASP racist nation since it's inception. That is not supported by our political ideology but instead is a fact related to the disregard of our national political ideology by the WASP's that have been in control of our government and our economy since it was created. Overcoming the invidiousness of racism and religion are two of the most critical challenges that have faced America since it was founded. We've made some progress in both regards but there is a long ways to go before we can claim to have achieved the ideology that was the foundation for America.
Yes, it is true that many that come to the United States for it's economic benefits don't have any desire to become US citizens. So what. Since when have we imposed a requirement that a person must become a US citizen to benefit from the US economy? There are millionaires and billionaire that achieved their wealth by exploiting the US economy as well as poor people that have never become US citizens. Of course their children born here are US citizens and these children have always been an asset to the United States.
BTW I'm very much opposed to our immigration laws that allow a wealthy person to virtually purchase US citizenship. I don't mind if they go through the same process that a poor person goes through to become a US citizen but to simply purchase US citizenship is flat out wrong IMHO.
Well, at least you are candid as regarding your "very low opinion" of most Americans' capacity for rational thought. (It is certainly true that there are some low-information types--and these gave Barack Obama his margin of victory in both 2008 and 2012--but to imagine that these represent Americans in general strikes me as being immensely elitist.) By the way, the Founders--whom you have enlisted in support of your elitist viewpoint--did not live in a society in which a four-year college degree (or even a high-school diploma) was the utterly ubiquitous matter that it is in 2014. As for the possible confusion of "opinions" with actual "news reporting"--well, nice try. But on FNC, at least (which I watch regularly), the two are kept entirely separate. For instance, on Special Report (which airs from 5:00 PM-6:00 PM CT--my own time zone), the first 40 minutes or so are devoted to hard news, whereas the remaining 20 minutes or so are devoted to a panel discussion, in which opinions are routinely offerred. Moreover, I am not at all certain that all illegals in the US are working for "minimum wage." However, even many of those who are may send part of their respective paycheks back home to Mexico. In any case, that is certainly what I have heard reported. Why would our having a robust guest-worker program have to exclude all but "seasonal" work? Contrary to your own suggestion, I have heard it reported on the news that the fence near San Diego (and Baja, California) has slowed illegal immigration there to a mere trickle; in fact, that it has almost stopped it completely. To assert that the US has been racist from the beginning is to miss the point. Yes, Thomas Jefferson had slaves (and even fathered a child by one of those slaves: Sally Hemmings). And Abraham Lincoln, a couple of generations later, made statements about black people that could easily have been the words of the Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan (which would actually not be formed until a little later, during the Reconstruction Era). Worse yet, Lincoln's words were not even uttered during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of the 1850s, but during his tenure as President of the United States, during the Civil War. But that has changed enormously since the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. So to lament "our national political ideology by the WASP's that have been in control of our government and our economy since it was created" begs the question: What would you wish to see changed, fundamentally, about out "government and our economy," if only you could wave a magic wand and accomplish it? Would you wish for America to more closely resemble Europe? Or Venezuela? Or what?
Please go back and read what I said. I didn't say that Americans had a low capacity for rational thought. I stated that IMO the American people had a very low understanding and knowledge of the political ideology upon which America was founded. This is no just among common Americans but is reflected at our highest level of government. I'll provide two examples.
1) Rand Paul, that we both acknowledge as being informed, opposes abortion and has endorsed establishing "personhood" for the preborn but fails to understand that would not change the Right of a Woman to have an abortion based upon the Inalienable Rights of a Person. An Inalienable Right is certainly inherent in the Person and while personhood implies Rights for the Preborn there cannot be an Inalienable Right if it conflicts with our infringes upon someone else's Inalienable Rights or creates an obligation upon another Person. The preborn would certainly have a Right to Life if granted personhood but not inside the woman's womb as that would infringed upon her Rights and impose an Obligation upon her. So the Preborn would have a Right to Life outside of the woman's body if it could survive on it's own. In effect granting personhood to the preborn doesn't change anything and a woman related to the abortion issue because Inalienable Rights do not exist where a conflict exists. The Woman still has the Right of Self and the Preborn would have a Right to Life but not in the woman's womb. Doen Rand Paul understand this and is hiding this knowledge from the public or is he uninformed when it comes to Inalienable Rights?
2) Property ownership is established under our laws based upon "Title of Ownership" either by document or possession under the political ideology of the "Divine Right of Kings" and is not based upon the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as established by the arguments presented by John Locke. When people refer to the "Right of Property" they're overwhelmingly referring to "Title of Property" which is not an "Inalienable Right of Property" of the Person.
Ah.... a change in your statements. Yes, some but not all or even a majority of immigrants do send some of their income back to their families in their native countries but it is not a significant percentage of their income most of which they have to spend on the necessary expenditures of living in the United States. If that is what FNC is reporting then it is accurate.
The illegal border crossings did not stop nor were they reduced by the fense in San Diego, they just cross where it's easier to do so. Those seeking to cross illegally will always choose the path of least resistance but they will cross one way or another just the same. It's no different than drug smuggling where all of the efforts by the US government have been completely ineffective at stopping the illegal flow of drugs into the US. The black market always finds a way to circumvent any efforts to stop it.
The H-1B immigration visas are limited to seasonal work. The H-2B visas provide permanent working status that relate to year-round jobs. An immigrant that works in the US year-round is not considered to be a guest worker under our immigration laws.
Overt racial discrimination has been reduced in the United States since the 1960's but racial prejudice that results in discrimination has not been reduced significantly if at all. As I've documented in several studies conducted between 2008 and 2012 they all established that over 50% of All Americans have anti-black and anti-Hispanic racial prejudice when measured for on both explict and implicit criteria.
The question of what I would change about our "government and our economy" is huge and not easily answered but I can state that emulating Europe or Venezuela isn't even on the table as far as a consideration. I would also believe that the problem to be addressed is with the "People" as the government and the ecomony only reflect the people. If I had a magic wand (and three wishes) this is what I'd do:
The first thing I'd do is eliminate invidious prejudice that creates discrimination resulting in denial of economic opportunity and social equality.
The second thing I'd do is to magically give us all an understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. This would have far reaching effects not the least of which would be a change in our understanding of "ownership of property" which, as I noted above, is not based upon a Right of Property but today is based upon the Divine Right of Kings. Even I would gain from this "magic" because I don't claim to know it all but I do believe that in the end we'd all be better off.
The third "wish" I'd save to address that which might need to be addressed after the effects of the first two are realized. Maybe the third "wish" would never be required but I wouldn't waste it prematurely.
|
|
