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

12345679»

Posts

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    What makes them illegal, anyway? Doesn't there have to be some sort of harm, even if indirect, to justify criminalization?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    What makes them illegal, anyway? Doesn't there have to be some sort of harm, even if indirect, to justify criminalization?

    They're disobeying racist laws and for that they must be punished.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    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?

    Okay,
    Lets do that.

    Oh look at that, we can now tighten our immigration even more and let fewer people actually immigrate to first world nations because it's way more profitable to bring in people under harsh conditions and then kick them out on a whim and we only need so many people to maintain a strong work force. Certainly we will bring in way more immigrants now than we used to but 95% will be underclass.

    Oh, I guess you didn't consider having a second class immigration might have an effect on regular immigration policies because it would change the countries needs.

    Is the greater good really to have a larger number of underclass laborers who are subject to harsh conditions or would you rather some of them actually had a chance at real immigration? Maybe you should think about that.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    Is the greater good really to have a larger number of underclass laborers who are subject to harsh conditions or would you rather some of them actually had a chance at real immigration? Maybe you should think about that.

    That's kind of a false dichotomy. There isn't really a reason you can't have both. Encourage immigration of skilled workers, encourage guest worker programs for unskilled workers.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    Oh look at that, we can now tighten our immigration even more and let fewer people actually immigrate to first world nations because it's way more profitable to bring in people under harsh conditions and then kick them out on a whim and we only need so many people to maintain a strong work force. Certainly we will bring in way more immigrants now than we used to but 95% will be underclass.

    Why would you do that? You can still have two tracks, one for educated workers and one for non. If educated workers face the spectre of deportation on a whim, they will be more likely to just not come, since presumably even if their opportunities are less in their home countries, they still have opportunities. And what 'underclass', will proper regulatory oversight, their immigration will be voluntary and they will be materially better off. I mean, the rational actor construct breaks down in many places in economics, but I don't think this is one of them. If the economic terms of the regulation aren't favorable to immigrants, they will stop coming.

    Not that I necessarily agree with Ronya's proposition, I'd rather just have a fast track legal immigration procedure with vastly increased quotas and an aim towards trying to integrate new immigrants into our culture more easily (increased availability of English language courses as an example).

    As an aside, American Labor comes of as the epitamy of a spoiled child when they complain about immigration. The welfare of workers is so damn important, unless they are brown and/or not part of our clique, then fuck 'em.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    If you plan on allowing guest workers to do the most dangerous jobs such as timber cutter, construction and slaughter house work I see no reason why local workers in those areas shouldn't be against this guest program. An immigrant population you can compete with, complaining does make you look like a spoiled child, a guest worker who gets paid below minimum wage ... that's a different story.

    If you're so concerned with the welfare of brown people as you call them what percentage of your yearly income do you donate to them? If you spend it mostly on cellphones, cars, computers and vacations please ease up on the moral preachy stuff, I already donate to charity.

    @Loren Michael,
    I guess your correct, we could Encourage immigration of skilled workers, encourage guest worker programs for unskilled workers.

    But by doing so your taking away opportunities for unskilled workers to have any chance of immigrating to the US. Maybe I need to do more research but I'm pretty sure there are lots of unskilled workers who come to the US by one avenue or another and they find unskilled work to do that Americans don't want to do (their niche) and eventually many of them or their children become US citizens.

    the guest worker program takes away their niche.

    There may be a place for a guest worker program, but I still haven't heard how this will solve the population vs limited resources problem....I was just told that it might help a tiny bit and that if I can't be bother to push for legislation that helps a handful of brown people I'm a silly goose who hates brown people.....that's an emotional appeal not an arguement.

    make a new thread about immigration or offer something solid that shifting a few thousand workers (out of a billion poor) from A-->B on guest worker or immigration programs will be more than a drop in the bucket.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    If you plan on allowing guest workers to do the most dangerous jobs such as timber cutter, construction and slaughter house work I see no reason why local workers in those areas shouldn't be against this guest program. An immigrant population you can compete with, complaining does make you look like a spoiled child, a guest worker who gets paid below minimum wage ... that's a different story.

    If you're so concerned with the welfare of brown people as you call them what percentage of your yearly income do you donate to them? If you spend it mostly on cellphones, cars, computers and vacations please ease up on the moral preachy stuff, I already donate to charity.

    @Loren Michael,
    I guess your correct, we could Encourage immigration of skilled workers, encourage guest worker programs for unskilled workers.

    But by doing so your taking away opportunities for unskilled workers to have any chance of immigrating to the US. Maybe I need to do more research but I'm pretty sure there are lots of unskilled workers who come to the US by one avenue or another and they find unskilled work to do that Americans don't want to do (their niche) and eventually many of them or their children become US citizens.

    the guest worker program takes away their niche.

    There would still be opportunities for unskilled laborers in whatever capacity they come here, but I suppose yes, they would face some competition for jobs.

    I'm not really seeing the problem here though, as either way, a certain number of people gain access to opportunities. Whether it's one set of downtrodden people or another, they're gaining opportunities.
    There may be a place for a guest worker program, but I still haven't heard how this will solve the population vs limited resources problem...

    It actually helps a lot. It distributes labor more efficiently and puts more money in the hands of people who need it.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    What makes them illegal, anyway? Doesn't there have to be some sort of harm, even if indirect, to justify criminalization?

    Really? We're dragging the discussion down to this level of purposeful stupidity?

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    What makes them illegal, anyway? Doesn't there have to be some sort of harm, even if indirect, to justify criminalization?

    Really? We're dragging the discussion down to this level of purposeful stupidity?
    I'm not the one who made this about immigration. But I guess as you know I'm not much of a fan of declaring someone's very existence to be criminal.

  • mythagomythago 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).

    "Instant citizenship for their kids" only applies to children who are born here. Are you really proposing that we should stop saying 'if you are born here, you are one of us' and start requiring people born in America to prove their lineage? That's a pretty Old World attitude. (And please, let's not get into the silly "Anchor Babies" thing again. ICE has made it perfectly clear that they're happy to break up families, and we don't deport citizens out of spite because their parents wanted them to be Americans.)
    If you don't mind my asking something potentially offensive, why do you want a kid? I've never liked kids or felt even the slightest twinge of desire to create them.

    Then why are you asking him to provide an explanation that will make absolutely no sense to you? It's not offensive, just silly.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D 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.

    Great. How in that world does that negate the rest of the post you trimmed?

  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Then why are you asking him to provide an explanation that will make absolutely no sense to you? It's not offensive, just silly.
    I didn't say it would make no sense to me, and your assumption that it would is predicated on a particular understanding of the reasoning for having kids that everyone may not share.

    He could've said something like "I want to leave an impact on the world after I'm dead", which would have been understandable. Even simpler motives like "I want someone to take care of me when I am unable to do so" are possible.

    It's no different from you asking someone why they've always wanted to be a doctor, for example. Maybe it's just some weird internal compulsion without an obvious source that you would never understand. Maybe it's just the money.

    MWO User Name: Gorn Arming
    StarCraft II User Name: DeadMenRise
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited February 2010

    It's no different from you asking someone why they've always wanted to be a doctor, for example.

    Asking somebody flat-out "why do you want to do X" (be a doctor, have kids, move to Italy) is very different from prefacing the question by saying that you, yourself, would never want to do X and have never had the slightest urge to do X. There's a strong implication that at best any explanation is going to make no sense and at worst is going to open the door for 'well, that's a dumb reason.'

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mythago wrote: »

    It's no different from you asking someone why they've always wanted to be a doctor, for example.

    Asking somebody flat-out "why do you want to do X" (be a doctor, have kids, move to Italy) is very different from prefacing the question by saying that you, yourself, would never want to do X and have never had the slightest urge to do X. There's a strong implication that at best any explanation is going to make no sense and at worst is going to open the door for 'well, that's a dumb reason.'
    For someone who wasn't even asked the question, you sure are doing a lot of whining about the way I phrased it.

    MWO User Name: Gorn Arming
    StarCraft II User Name: DeadMenRise
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    For someone who wasn't even asked the question, you sure are doing a lot of whining about the way I phrased it.

    You seem to have confused the 'private message' and 'submit reply' functions on this board. If you want to have a conversation with another poster such that nobody else can participate, you use the former, not the latter. If you post to the discussion it seems rather silly to whine that somebody barged in.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
Sign In or Register to comment.