Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Population vs. Limited Resources

1234568

Posts

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Meh, confused you with Modern Man. It's the MM acronym or something.

    I apologize for the accusation. But the cancellation of the wage floor for foreign workers works due to two reasons:

    - the minimum wage can be much higher than the wage a worker can reasonably expect to obtain at home. The cost of living varies widely, after all: a guest worker doesn't expect to save up for a home in the American suburbs, or send his or her children to an American college. The vast majority of their earned income is to be spent in a country where dollars are worth a lot more.

    Which means that there will be a lot of people willing to earn a lower-than-minimum-wage rate. If you deny them this opportunity, they'll have to remain in worse conditions. I doubt you want that.

    - it is already politically unacceptable to allow foreigners to compete significantly with Americans, in industries where Americans already dominate (see also: Modern Man). So one alternative is jobs which Americans refuse to do - jobs which would only exist with a dramatically lower minimum wage rate. Middle-class domestic help is an example.

    Steam
    Africa’s slow growth was unexpected... In the 1960s, most African countries were richer than their Asian counterparts, and their stronger natural resource base led many to believe that Africa’s economic potential was superior to overpopulated Asia’s. This view was shared by renowned economists, from Gunnar Myrdal in his well-known Asian Drama, to Andrew Kamarck, the founding director of the World Bank’s economic analysis complex, who listed seven African countries that he thought could grow at annual rates of 7 percent or more...
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Oh, so your point was that you didn't have a point.

    Carry on then.

    My point was that it already happens and organized labor is mostly a tool to separate members from income instead of actually helping all people secure opportunity.

  • MrMisterMrMister 7 cards in hand Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Meh, confused you with Modern Man. It's the MM acronym or something.

    Everything makes so much more sense now!
    there will be a lot of people willing to earn a lower-than-minimum-wage rate. If you deny them this opportunity, they'll have to remain in worse conditions. I doubt you want that.

    ...one alternative is jobs which Americans refuse to do - jobs which would only exist with a dramatically lower minimum wage rate.

    There are a lot of people, including Americans, who are willing to work for less than minimum wage, even though it's prohibited. There are plenty of Americans who are literally working for less than minimum wage, as well as plenty who are effectively working for less than minimum wage when you account for things like unpaid overtime. All of this is very illegal, but also completely unenforced. I think you have a rosy picture of life as a poor American laborer if you think that no one here is willing to do grueling or low-paid work.

    This essentially seems like a variation on: "lowering the minimum wage will create jobs, which will be good for labor." I don't think that's especially true, however, so I'm not on board. If our goal is really to help the world's poor and huddled masses, we would let them become for real-real Americans, not just for play-play Americans.

    Valuing scholarship above all else, the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those who sacrifice power for knowledge.
  • MrMisterMrMister 7 cards in hand Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    My point was that it already happens and organized labor is mostly a tool to separate members from income instead of actually helping all people secure opportunity.

    Ah, so that was the eloquent argument contained in a grating South Park clip. I am blind for missing it.

    Valuing scholarship above all else, the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those who sacrifice power for knowledge.
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    My point was that it already happens and organized labor is mostly a tool to separate members from income instead of actually helping all people secure opportunity.

    Ah, so that was the eloquent argument contained in a grating South Park clip. I am blind for missing it.

    Obviously the clip lacks the context of the entire episode but the situation was this:

    Time travellers from the distant future move to Southpark and work for minimum wage and put the money in an interest bearing account so their children and relatives in the future will have money. And all the laborers are outraged because they're losing their jobs to these time travelling immigrants who work for very little.

    They want to deprive these desperate people of opportunity because they lost their jobs, and that's all they care about and they can't see the broader perspective.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    To toss my own hat in the union ring:

    US union impacts vary by industry. Some US unions are more obstructive - and destructive - than others. Remember that there is the beneficial role of unions as an organized feedback mechanism, and as a counterbalance to industrial monopoly power. Often this is outweighed by the negative impact, especially in the US, but some industries manage to make it work.

    Regardless, unionization in the United States has been solidly decreasing for nearly half a century and it is a little late to worry about a hypothetical new minority of foreigners ruining their bargaining power.

    Steam
    Africa’s slow growth was unexpected... In the 1960s, most African countries were richer than their Asian counterparts, and their stronger natural resource base led many to believe that Africa’s economic potential was superior to overpopulated Asia’s. This view was shared by renowned economists, from Gunnar Myrdal in his well-known Asian Drama, to Andrew Kamarck, the founding director of the World Bank’s economic analysis complex, who listed seven African countries that he thought could grow at annual rates of 7 percent or more...
  • DmanDman Registered User
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I think ronya & co did a decent job explaining how they want more legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.

    They would make a second class of immigrants who do not qualify to immigrate here under the existing policies.

    These immigrants would still be legal, have rights, receive the exact same pay from employers as existing workers, join unions, etc.

    Not factually accurate! I was objecting to the following:
    ronya wrote:
    Drop minimum wage protection for guest workers.

    This is a recipe for sad face.

    My mistake, I agree with you that simply dropping the minimum wage for guest workers ia a recipe for sad face.

    I read earlier on that same page where ronya suggested these 2nd class workers would work for minimum wage but get taxed at 50% and somehow glossed over him suggesting we just drop minimum wage for them.


    @ronya
    You can already immigrate to Canada as @home help for the elderly. We grant work permits that only allow you to work for the employer who has hired you all the time already, but we actually have laws that you cannot underpay these people because they are obviously at the mercy of a single employer and have no bargaining power. I don't like the idea of having a second class of immigrants where we do the opposite.

    @mrt144 & ronya
    You still haven't explained why American labor should be happy at the prospect of a lower minimum wage which would be almost impossible to avoid if you want to bring over millions and millions of poor unskilled laborers.
    And if you're only bringing over a handfull of laborers under this program why bother. You'd be better off giving clean drinking water or vaccines to the untold masses back where your importing these lucky few workers from.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    This essentially seems like a variation on: "lowering the minimum wage will create jobs, which will be good for labor." I don't think that's especially true, however, so I'm not on board.

    No, no. I agree that applying the standard labor model here is misleading. There is enough evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage does not reduce employment (Card and Krueger and so on). Since the mid-1990s the previous academic consensus has collapsed and the jury is now still out.

    But it is not currently possible (and not being seriously proposed) to simply merge the labor markets of the US and its neighbors. If anything, there will be (at best) industry-limited opportunities being opened, and only where they do not conflict with existing organized political opposition (not necessarily that of labor; plain racism has always played a stronger role in the American political landscape than class unity).

    Which means, yes, there will be particular industries where immigrants may wish to work where we will observe a conflict with minimum-wage legislation. Nobody - not even Card and Krueger - will dispute that there are some businesses for which minimum wages will entail losses in employment.

    Of course, the optimal scenario here would be to set business and labor-specific minimum wages for given types of laborers. Conservatives like to point out that many minimum wage laborers are teenagers seeking after-school employment rather than primary income earners (the corollary that many conservatives then fail to mention, of course, is that any jobs lost in their model are merely from said teenagers rather than primary income earners...). What would be best is if we could separate the labor pool into its constituent parts and identify both the industries that would benefit from wage legislation and the laborers who most need the wage increases, but the lack of a political infrastructure and culture of intervention prohibits that.

    But we will already be intervening vigorously in a foreign labor market pool. So, yes, drop the minimum wage.
    MrMister wrote: »
    If our goal is really to help the world's poor and huddled masses, we would let them become for real-real Americans, not just for play-play Americans.

    There is already a channel for people to become real-real Americans, so to speak. By all means we can increase its availability, but then we have people like Modern Man.

    In the meanwhile, we should recognize that there are ways to both alleviate the fears of Modern Man and still improve the lives of hundreds of thousands, without waiting for the day where America is composed solely of wise philosopher-kings who will wholeheartedly support a better policy.

    Steam
    Africa’s slow growth was unexpected... In the 1960s, most African countries were richer than their Asian counterparts, and their stronger natural resource base led many to believe that Africa’s economic potential was superior to overpopulated Asia’s. This view was shared by renowned economists, from Gunnar Myrdal in his well-known Asian Drama, to Andrew Kamarck, the founding director of the World Bank’s economic analysis complex, who listed seven African countries that he thought could grow at annual rates of 7 percent or more...
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    I read earlier on that same page where ronya suggested these 2nd class workers would work for minimum wage but get taxed at 50% and somehow glossed over him suggesting we just drop minimum wage for them.


    @ronya
    You can already immigrate to Canada as @home help for the elderly. We grant work permits that only allow you to work for the employer who has hired you all the time already, but we actually have laws that you cannot underpay these people because they are obviously at the mercy of a single employer and have no bargaining power. I don't like the idea of having a second class of immigrants where we do the opposite.

    @mrt144 & ronya
    You still haven't explained why American labor should be happy at the prospect of a lower minimum wage which would be almost impossible to avoid if you want to bring over millions and millions of poor unskilled laborers.
    And if you're only bringing over a handfull of laborers under this program why bother. You'd be better off giving clean drinking water or vaccines to the untold masses back where your importing these lucky few workers from.

    The 50% was an extreme hypothetical, to hammer in the point that all the "costs" that Modern Man was worrying about can be easily met through some legislative ingenuity (or rather, legislative will to copy what other countries already do).

    I've just written about the minimum wage issue, go take a look. Please don't fixate on it though, I meant it as part of the host of legislative ideas that other countries have applied to maximize the benefit of guest labor to their host countries (and part of that is exploiting differences in living wages in different countries. The employee is still far better off, even if the wage wouldn't be enough to support him in the host country - because he won't be living in the host country. He works, he earns, he leaves, incurring no "social cost" for xenophobes to shriek about).

    By all means, if it is clear that raising the wages of this class of immigrants is possible for this industry, with this demographic of immigrants without hurting employment, then go ahead. More power to you. Otherwise, drop the protection and let more in.

    As for American labor, I repeat that labor is not homogeneous and we can permit migration for certain industries or positions, and a careful use of this power will not compromise American labor bargaining power. In the meanwhile, America will be better off through cheaper whatever it is you've elected to permit.

    Even just benefiting a "handful" - amazing how all those brown people collapse into a statistic, don't they? - will still allow that many lives to be that much better off. And you save the money sent as foreign aid, which you can now spend on your own people.

    I must say I'm disappointed, though. I had thought from your previous posts that you were above the "only American people are human" bullshit that other posters were implying, but apparently not.

    Steam
    Africa’s slow growth was unexpected... In the 1960s, most African countries were richer than their Asian counterparts, and their stronger natural resource base led many to believe that Africa’s economic potential was superior to overpopulated Asia’s. This view was shared by renowned economists, from Gunnar Myrdal in his well-known Asian Drama, to Andrew Kamarck, the founding director of the World Bank’s economic analysis complex, who listed seven African countries that he thought could grow at annual rates of 7 percent or more...
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I read earlier on that same page where ronya suggested these 2nd class workers would work for minimum wage but get taxed at 50% and somehow glossed over him suggesting we just drop minimum wage for them.


    @ronya
    You can already immigrate to Canada as @home help for the elderly. We grant work permits that only allow you to work for the employer who has hired you all the time already, but we actually have laws that you cannot underpay these people because they are obviously at the mercy of a single employer and have no bargaining power. I don't like the idea of having a second class of immigrants where we do the opposite.

    @mrt144 & ronya
    You still haven't explained why American labor should be happy at the prospect of a lower minimum wage which would be almost impossible to avoid if you want to bring over millions and millions of poor unskilled laborers.
    And if you're only bringing over a handfull of laborers under this program why bother. You'd be better off giving clean drinking water or vaccines to the untold masses back where your importing these lucky few workers from.

    The 50% was an extreme hypothetical, to hammer in the point that all the "costs" that Modern Man was worrying about can be easily met through some legislative ingenuity (or rather, legislative will to copy what other countries already do).

    I've just written about the minimum wage issue, go take a look. Please don't fixate on it though, I meant it as part of the host of legislative ideas that other countries have applied to maximize the benefit of guest labor to their host countries (and part of that is exploiting differences in living wages in different countries. The employee is still far better off, even if the wage wouldn't be enough to support him in the host country - because he won't be living in the host country. He works, he earns, he leaves, incurring no "social cost" for xenophobes to shriek about).

    By all means, if it is clear that raising the wages of this class of immigrants is possible for this industry, with this demographic of immigrants without hurting employment, then go ahead. More power to you. Otherwise, drop the protection and let more in.

    As for American labor, I repeat that labor is not homogeneous and we can permit migration for certain industries or positions, and a careful use of this power will not compromise American labor bargaining power. In the meanwhile, America will be better off through cheaper whatever it is you've elected to permit.

    Even just benefiting a "handful" - amazing how all those brown people collapse into a statistic, don't they? - will still allow that many lives to be that much better off. And you save the money sent as foreign aid, which you can now spend on your own people.

    I must say I'm disappointed, though. I had thought from your previous posts that you were above the "only American people are human" bullshit that other posters were implying, but apparently not.

    I guess he wouldn't have a problem with it if they could become unionized employees.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I guess he wouldn't have a problem with it if they could become unionized employees.

    For what it's worth, foreign migrant workers like that are already often recognized by a significant organized entity, namely the government of the country they are from. The Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia (all three of which have enormous numbers of citizens working as guest workers in other nations) can and do already push legislation on behalf of their citizens, either directly via their ambassadorial office, or via NGOs linked to the government. This is obviously a sensitive issue, since nobody likes the prospect of another government pushing legislation in one's country. But it is done, and done often.

    (It is precisely for this reason that development literature discussing international labor markets often discusses incentives targeted at governments of the source country. Essentially, take domestic labor economics and substitute 'government' for 'union'. Remember that, like unions, the source government also benefits from its workers earning more).

    Steam
    Africa’s slow growth was unexpected... In the 1960s, most African countries were richer than their Asian counterparts, and their stronger natural resource base led many to believe that Africa’s economic potential was superior to overpopulated Asia’s. This view was shared by renowned economists, from Gunnar Myrdal in his well-known Asian Drama, to Andrew Kamarck, the founding director of the World Bank’s economic analysis complex, who listed seven African countries that he thought could grow at annual rates of 7 percent or more...
  • DmanDman Registered User
    edited February 2010
    ronya,
    let me put this another way.
    how would you feel about china implementing a program similar to what your describing.

    China could import workers from even poorer countries, pay them half what they pay the lowliest of Chinese factory workers and allow them to only work in the most unhealthy most dangerous industries and only on a temporary basis. When they get sick, injured, or old they get sent back to their poor country with their meager savings.

    It's good for China and of course, these immigrants would otherwise probably starve.

    Your a silly goose who doesn't care about brown people if you don't support this.

    That's kinda how I feel I'm being addressed.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Gee, it seems to work pretty great!

    If the workers arrive and leave of their own free will, it's a good indicator that as horrible as their work may be, it's still better than where they're from. Or did you forget that?

    Of course, brown people are easier to forget about when they're in their home countries, right?

    Steam
    Africa’s slow growth was unexpected... In the 1960s, most African countries were richer than their Asian counterparts, and their stronger natural resource base led many to believe that Africa’s economic potential was superior to overpopulated Asia’s. This view was shared by renowned economists, from Gunnar Myrdal in his well-known Asian Drama, to Andrew Kamarck, the founding director of the World Bank’s economic analysis complex, who listed seven African countries that he thought could grow at annual rates of 7 percent or more...
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    ronya,
    let me put this another way.
    how would you feel about china implementing a program similar to what your describing.

    China could import workers from even poorer countries, pay them half what they pay the lowliest of Chinese factory workers and allow them to only work in the most unhealthy most dangerous industries and only on a temporary basis. When they get sick, injured, or old they get sent back to their poor country with their meager savings.

    It's good for China and of course, these immigrants would otherwise probably starve.

    Your a silly goose who doesn't care about brown people if you don't support this.

    That's kinda how I feel I'm being addressed.

    That's better than the current paradigm, but it's also not analogous to what is being proposed, given that standards in developed countries are much higher than in developing countries like China with extremely high levels of inequality, and "half of what they pay the lowliest of <developed country X>'s workers is significantly higher than what is normal in many parts of the undeveloped and developing world.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.

    It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.

    So it's our obligation to financially support criminals because they're breaking the law in a very sad way?

    Unchecked humanism has no place in objective economic policy. Or anywhere else, really.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Unchecked humanism has no place in objective economic policy. Or anywhere else, really.

    What differentiates the "unchecked" kind of humanism from regular humanism?

    Wydrion wrote: »
    ...Or you can sit around in the thread calling _J_ a cocksucker, you know, whatever's more constructive.
    3DS: 3668-7498-6513
    PaD Herder
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.

    It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.

    So it's our obligation to financially support criminals because they're breaking the law in a very sad way?

    Unchecked humanism has no place in objective economic policy. Or anywhere else, really.

    It's our obligation to provide medical care to criminals in prisons too.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • MrMisterMrMister 7 cards in hand Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Citizenship on birth prevents us from developing a permanent underclass.

    That would only happen if the accompanying eventual deportation didn't occur. Which it would.

    There can't be an "underclass" if there's no opportunity to support that class.

    I would look to the experience of European countries like Germany, where there are sixth and seventh generation Turkish workers who aren't citizens.

    So you're saying we should grant people citizenship despite their illegal status because they're persistent about breaking the law?

    Interesting idea.

    You're moving the goalposts so fast I'm getting dizzy; is your contention that illegal immigrants wouldn't for an underclass, or that it doesn't matter that they'd form an underclass (because they're illegal!).

    Because I'm pretty sure you said the first one first, and then the second one second.

    Valuing scholarship above all else, the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those who sacrifice power for knowledge.
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.

    It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.

    So it's our obligation to financially support criminals because they're breaking the law in a very sad way?

    Unchecked humanism has no place in objective economic policy. Or anywhere else, really.

    It's our obligation to provide medical care to criminals in prisons too.

    True. But they're serving time, not living free making untaxed income and using resources from our infrastructure.

    I'll extend humanistic courtesy to the incarcerated, not those evading the law.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.

    It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.

    So it's our obligation to financially support criminals because they're breaking the law in a very sad way?

    Unchecked humanism has no place in objective economic policy. Or anywhere else, really.

    It's our obligation to provide medical care to criminals in prisons too.

    True. But they're serving time, not living free making untaxed income and using resources from our infrastructure.

    I'll extend humanistic courtesy to the incarcerated, not those evading the law.

    So, wait.

    An Illigal immigrant who is free on the streets oughtn't get medical care.
    An illegal immigrant who is in jail ought to get medical care.

    That is your position.

    Wydrion wrote: »
    ...Or you can sit around in the thread calling _J_ a cocksucker, you know, whatever's more constructive.
    3DS: 3668-7498-6513
    PaD Herder
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    You're moving the goalposts so fast I'm getting dizzy; is your contention that illegal immigrants wouldn't form an underclass, or that it doesn't matter that they'd form an underclass (because they're illegal!).

    I'm saying that without incentive or support, an underclass wouldn't exist. And if they somehow did, while they're waiting for repatriation, they still wouldn't be allowed access to social services.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm saying that without incentive or support, an underclass wouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Wydrion wrote: »
    ...Or you can sit around in the thread calling _J_ a cocksucker, you know, whatever's more constructive.
    3DS: 3668-7498-6513
    PaD Herder
  • MrMisterMrMister 7 cards in hand Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    In the meanwhile, we should recognize that there are ways to both alleviate the fears of Modern Man and still improve the lives of hundreds of thousands, without waiting for the day where America is composed solely of wise philosopher-kings who will wholeheartedly support a better policy.

    Well, if we're talking simply about what's politically feasible in America right now, then this is all pretty much a pipe-dream. System reform is highly unlikely, and the best thing we could hope for (an amnesty) is dead in the water.

    So there we go.

    Valuing scholarship above all else, the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those who sacrifice power for knowledge.
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.

    It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.

    So it's our obligation to financially support criminals because they're breaking the law in a very sad way?

    Unchecked humanism has no place in objective economic policy. Or anywhere else, really.

    It's our obligation to provide medical care to criminals in prisons too.

    True. But they're serving time, not living free making untaxed income and using resources from our infrastructure.

    I'll extend humanistic courtesy to the incarcerated, not those evading the law.

    Didn't we already tell you that the THEY DON'T PAY TAXES thing is untrue?

    steam_sig.png
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    _J_ wrote:
    So, wait.

    An Illigal immigrant who is free on the streets oughtn't get medical care.
    An illegal immigrant who is in jail ought to get medical care.

    That is your position.

    Preferably, illegal immigrants wouldn't be in jail. I think it's ridiculous to incarcerate people for simply entering a nation illegal with no further intent than illegal employment.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    If you start reporting undocumented patients, they're not going to all either go home or get green cards; they're just going to stop going to the emergency room. Then we are going to get people dying on the streets instead.

    It is my personal belief that that would not be an improvement.

    So it's our obligation to financially support criminals because they're breaking the law in a very sad way?

    Unchecked humanism has no place in objective economic policy. Or anywhere else, really.

    It's our obligation to provide medical care to criminals in prisons too.

    True. But they're serving time, not living free making untaxed income and using resources from our infrastructure.

    I'll extend humanistic courtesy to the incarcerated, not those evading the law.

    Except everything you just said there has been shown to be false multiple times over in this thread.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Didn't we already tell you that the THEY DON'T PAY TAXES thing is untrue?

    It's only untrue for illegal immigrants who gained employment by going to the trouble of creating and submitting falsified data.

    The millions of day-laborers are doing no such thing.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    _J_ wrote:
    So, wait.

    An Illigal immigrant who is free on the streets oughtn't get medical care.
    An illegal immigrant who is in jail ought to get medical care.

    That is your position.

    Preferably, illegal immigrants wouldn't be in jail. I think it's ridiculous to incarcerate people for simply entering a nation illegal with no further intent than illegal employment.

    So we oughtn't give them medical care and we oughtn't put them in jail?

    They broke the law! People who broke the law go to jail!

    Wydrion wrote: »
    ...Or you can sit around in the thread calling _J_ a cocksucker, you know, whatever's more constructive.
    3DS: 3668-7498-6513
    PaD Herder
  • MrMisterMrMister 7 cards in hand Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    You're moving the goalposts so fast I'm getting dizzy; is your contention that illegal immigrants wouldn't form an underclass, or that it doesn't matter that they'd form an underclass (because they're illegal!).

    I'm saying that without incentive or support, an underclass wouldn't exist. And if they somehow did, while they're waiting for repatriation, they still wouldn't be allowed access to social services.

    What incentive and support are you talking about? What are you talking about at all?

    Valuing scholarship above all else, the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those who sacrifice power for knowledge.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    You're moving the goalposts so fast I'm getting dizzy; is your contention that illegal immigrants wouldn't form an underclass, or that it doesn't matter that they'd form an underclass (because they're illegal!).

    I'm saying that without incentive or support, an underclass wouldn't exist. And if they somehow did, while they're waiting for repatriation, they still wouldn't be allowed access to social services.

    What incentive and support are you talking about? What are you talking about at all?

    I think he's talking about bootstraps.

    Wydrion wrote: »
    ...Or you can sit around in the thread calling _J_ a cocksucker, you know, whatever's more constructive.
    3DS: 3668-7498-6513
    PaD Herder
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    You're moving the goalposts so fast I'm getting dizzy; is your contention that illegal immigrants wouldn't form an underclass, or that it doesn't matter that they'd form an underclass (because they're illegal!).

    I'm saying that without incentive or support, an underclass wouldn't exist. And if they somehow did, while they're waiting for repatriation, they still wouldn't be allowed access to social services.

    What incentive and support are you talking about? What are you talking about at all?

    The incentive to come here illegally (jobs, instant citizenship for their kids) and the support to make those goals attainable (emergent care, WIC, et al).

    I'm being fairly clear.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    They broke the law! People who broke the law go to jail!

    I know you're not trying to really engage here, but I'll answer you anyway.

    It's self-defeating and purposeless to penalize someone whose only crime was being here illegally by keeping them here longer and spending tax dollars to do so.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Like most commentaries on immigration, it seems everyone is completely content to go after illegal immigrants but has very little interest in punishing the businesses who knowingly hire them, create the demand for them, and are as a result, responsible for the denial of tax revenue they get by not paying American citizens.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Like most commentaries on immigration, it seems everyone is completely content to go after illegal immigrants but has very little interest in punishing the businesses who knowingly hire them, create the demand for them, and are as a result, responsible for the denial of tax revenue they get by not paying American citizens.

    If you refer to further up or back in the thread, you'll see that I'm strongly in favor of crack-downs on illegal hiring practices. Companies that can be demonstrably shown to engage in knowingly illegal hiring practices should be immediately shut down.

  • MrMisterMrMister 7 cards in hand Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The incentive to come here illegally (jobs, instant citizenship for their kids) and the support to make those goals attainable (emergent care, WIC, et al).

    I'm being fairly clear.

    Citizenship for children is not a necessary incentive, as the vast majority of countries in the world offer no such thing, and yet, you still get Turkish taxi drivers and Polish maids working all over Germany. Jobs (or the misconception that there will be jobs), it seems, are the real incentive, as they're the only constant that guarantees illegal immigration.

    So, I reject the notion that we should abandon citizenship-on-birth because it incentivizes illegal immigration; it is not the primary incentive, and it serves a valuable social function.

    Valuing scholarship above all else, the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those who sacrifice power for knowledge.
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    So, I reject the notion that we should abandon citizenship-on-birth because it incentivizes illegal immigration; it is not the primary incentive, and it serves a valuable social function.

    There are plenty of other grounds upon which to accept the proposition, not that I agree with your assessment. And what valuable social function does it perform, might I ask?

  • MrMisterMrMister 7 cards in hand Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    So, I reject the notion that we should abandon citizenship-on-birth because it incentivizes illegal immigration; it is not the primary incentive, and it serves a valuable social function.

    There are plenty of other grounds upon which to accept the proposition, not that I agree with your assessment. And what valuable social function does it perform, might I ask?

    It prevents the existence of a legally disenfranchized underclass. Said existence is not only a bad thing in and of itself, but it also undercuts labor's power in relation to capital. I think I've been fairly straightforward about that.

    Valuing scholarship above all else, the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower reward those who sacrifice power for knowledge.
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    It prevents the existence of a legally disenfranchized underclass. Said existence is not only a bad thing in and of itself, but it also undercuts labor's power in relation to capital. I think I've been fairly straightforward about that.

    It only prevents it if no policy or action is in place to deal with illegal transients.

    How would an underclass survive if they can't rent property, use system resources, go to a hospital, get a job, etc?


    You actually have to enforce legislation for it to have an effect.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    It prevents the existence of a legally disenfranchized underclass. Said existence is not only a bad thing in and of itself, but it also undercuts labor's power in relation to capital. I think I've been fairly straightforward about that.

    It only prevents it if no policy or action is in place to deal with illegal transients.

    How would an underclass survive if they can't rent property, use system resources, go to a hospital, get a job, etc?


    You actually have to enforce legislation for it to have an effect.

    Given that the only countries that don't have illegal immigration are the ones everyone is trying to get OUT of, I'm going to go with "its not that simple" for 1000. There are ALWAYS going to be people that evade the law somehow. In the end you only make things worse.

    Realize you're dealing with people that will spend the better part of a day sewn into the chair of a car in order to get across the border. Some of them do it more than once. "Enforce the law!" isn't quite as cut and dry as you think.

    How would they? Identify theft, usually. Sure a lot of them get caught, but...not enough.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    "Enforce the law!" isn't quite as cut and dry as you think.

    In that, I'm referring to the enforcement of illegal immigration deterrents, not the actual act of enforcing the penalties for illegally immigrating. Billions of dollars spent on deportation initiatives is just wasted money.

Sign In or Register to comment.