Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

2456736

Posts

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Ah. That old saw about "lazy americans". I see. The "point" you made is a soundbite by entrenched farming interests who survive on cheap illegal labor.
    I don't see what is lazy about people simply not wanting to do certain work. Most people are going to have to be fairly close to starving to accept a horse manure shoveling job.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Ah. That old saw about "lazy americans". I see. The "point" you made is a soundbite by entrenched farming interests who survive on cheap illegal labor.
    I don't see what is lazy about people simply not wanting to do certain work. Most people are going to have to be fairly close to starving to accept a horse manure shoveling job.

    While I don't disagree with this one bit, it is a completely separate argument from the current issue of having an endless supply of undocumented laborers.

    Anti-immigration laws were one of the biggest things Caesar Chavez fought for, as it hurt the already-established legal migrant farmer community's negotiation leverage and prevented them from organizing successful labor unions.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'll shovel horse manure if it pays well, for minimum wage though? Fuck that

    override367 on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'll shovel horse manure if it pays well, for minimum wage though? Fuck that

    Two people making minimum wage earn about $30k a year, pay no taxes, get a ton of federal benefits and tax exemptions, and probably qualify for Medicaid, foodstamps, and federal housing assistence.

    That leaves them $2500 month to spend on rent, transportation, and groceries.


    I assure you, it can be done.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Two people making $30k wouldn't qualify for food stamps where I live, not even close, probably not housing assistance either.

    What federal benefits, exactly? I mean other than getting a 100% tax refund

    override367 on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Isn't farm work usually not good temporary work in the sense that it is fairly hard to do both the farm work and looking for a job at the same time? Recessions are also temporary while this law will at least be a pain in the ass to remove.

    You'd be surprised at what people will work at when the options are "children starving" or "put food on the plate". Arizona is getting hammered for a number of reasons when it comes to employment, part of which is the wink and nudge that's been going on with illegal immigration on our business and political fronts.

    Re: 5th Amendment Violation

    And no, its not someone coming up and going "papers please". Its based on your suspicion, which is determined by articulable facts. In the example you gave, all they'd have to do is cross the line and they'd be home free and no one could detain them ever based on the fact that they're illegally present in the United States.

    As far as this bill goes, the entire immigration law enforcement community is kind of taking a wait and see attitude. Mainly because while we've just added the entire state as additional help, there's also plenty of yokels around here who have no clue what the difference is between a visa holder, a permanent resident, and a citizen. Honestly, legal Mexican immigrants are some of the biggest fans of the Patrol.

    Regardless, maybe it will stop some of the shit like the Chandler Rapist from going down so often in the future.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Two people making $30k wouldn't qualify for food stamps where I live, not even close, probably not housing assistance either.

    What federal benefits, exactly? I mean other than getting a 100% tax refund

    They would have to file separately, but it's pretty common.

    As for federal benefits, I mean things like tax credits, housing credits, food credits, Medicaid, et al.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The whole open boarders proposition or granting additional rights to illegals is just a bad idea.

    The proper solution is to make legal immigration easier.

    If people don't want to abide by immigration laws then yes, they have to deal with the consequences. Does it suck to not be born in a wealthy nation? Yeah I guess it does, but allowing mass immigration does not solve the problems of less wealthy countries. Mexico would not transform into a utopia just because you open the boarder.

    Dman on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    The whole open boarders proposition or granting additional rights to illegals is just a bad idea.

    The proper solution is to make legal immigration easier.

    If people don't want to abide by immigration laws then yes, they have to deal with the consequences. Does it suck to not be born in a wealthy nation? Yeah I guess it does, but allowing mass immigration does not solve the problems of less wealthy countries. Mexico would not transform into a utopia just because you open the boarder.

    Legal immigration is already pretty dang easy, all things considered.

    Just because everyone from Burundi would rather move here doesn't mean we have the resources or the desire to allow them all to move here.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think our immigration policies should be tiered and relative to things like national unemployment rate, skill level, and estimated need for federal aid.

    Importing workers who pay little into the tax base and use a larger percentage of assistance isn't exactly a sustainable phenomenon.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    I think our immigration policies should be tiered and relative to things like national unemployment rate, skill level, and estimated need for federal aid.

    Importing workers who pay little into the tax base and use a larger percentage of assistance isn't exactly a sustainable phenomenon.

    Well by law, you're supposed to be able to prove that you won't become a "public charge" if you immigrate. On the other hand, there's a laundry list of public aid programs that you can apply for and not be considered a public charge. Again, the wink and nudge.

    And its not just low wage jobs anymore that are being taken. There's a huge number of American engineers and IT workers who can't find work because of the H-1B visa program.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    First thing I have to get off my chest is that the quote in the OP should be 'Civis Romanus sum.' That has been rankling a nerve this entire read.

    Now more on topic. I don't know if there are Constitutional grounds to demand proof of citizenship, but the Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional for police to arrest someone who refuses to provide ID upon request (in states where such a law exists). The big problem is how you enact this on the southern border without it immediately devolving into racial profiling.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'll shovel horse manure if it pays well, for minimum wage though? Fuck that

    Two people making minimum wage earn about $30k a year, pay no taxes, get a ton of federal benefits and tax exemptions, and probably qualify for Medicaid, foodstamps, and federal housing assistence.

    That leaves them $2500 month to spend on rent, transportation, and groceries.


    I assure you, it can be done.

    I am pretty sure you would qualify for none of those. That said, it is entirely possible to live well off of less than 30 grand a year.

    Hell, I'm doing it for 12k a year in New York City (doing a year of public service). I live paycheck to paycheck, mostly, but I can still go out occasionally and I have enough to eat and get internet.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The big problem is how you enact this on the southern border without it immediately devolving into racial profiling.

    Well, as someone who works with illegals day in and day out, illegals tend to have a collection of traits about them: no discernible English skills, children who translate for them, overly warm clothes for a hot climate, difficulty understanding scientific explanations, and medical self-care routines based out of folk tradition instead of medicine. And of course, no ID, address, phone number, or insurance information.

    The question I would have is, at what point is it appropriate to ask somebody for their papers even in the light of these things? You generally have to have a warrant to search someone or demand proof of ID, so what is the cop going to say when he or she calls the judge to obtain it?

    "Uh, I got a young male here at the gas station on route 9. He's kinda brown and has a funny talk about him. Can I get a warrant to search him on suspicion of Mexicanity?"

    Atomika on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I am pretty sure you would qualify for none of those.

    It is a case-by-case basis, but a quick Google search shows that you qualify for Massachusetts' aid provisions if you make around $900 per month after payroll taxes.

    That's right about inline with minimum wage.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The big problem is how you enact this on the southern border without it immediately devolving into racial profiling.

    Well, as someone who works with illegals day in and day out, illegals tend to have a collection of traits about them: no discernible English skills, children who translate for them, overly warm clothes for a hot climate, difficulty understanding scientific explanations, and medical self-care routines based out of folk tradition instead of medicine. And of course, no ID, address, phone number, or insurance information.

    The question I would have is, at what point is it appropriate to ask somebody for their papers even in the light of these things? You generally have to have a warrant to search someone or demand proof of ID, so what is the cop going to say when he or she calls the judge to obtain it?

    "Uh, I got a young male here at the gas station on route 9. He's kinda brown and has a funny talk about him. Can I get a warrant to search him on suspicion of Mexicanity?"

    That's kind of my point; none of what you described, other than the lack of ID, really differentiates an illegal immigrant from many of the legal immigrants (or even American citizens) that I knew when I lived in Yuma. Because I have lived in and still own a home in a border town, I am very much in favor of border enforcement; it is a very real safety issue. The problem is that there is no way to tell without asking for their papers, so unless the checks are truly random or completely comprehensive (like the drunk driving checkpoints that CHP sometimes runs), you are going to run into some problems.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    That's kind of my point; none of what you described, other than the lack of ID, really differentiates an illegal immigrant from many of the legal immigrants (or even American citizens) that I knew when I lived in Yuma. Because I have lived in and still own a home in a border town, I am very much in favor of border enforcement; it is a very real safety issue. The problem is that there is no way to tell without asking for their papers, so unless the checks are truly random or completely comprehensive (like the drunk driving checkpoints that CHP sometimes runs), you are going to run into some problems.

    I'm guessing (and really, just guessing) that what this bill means is that law enforcement can now add illegal occupation to the arrest sheet when stopping someone for another suspected crime.

    I don't see how cops could go around asking for ID for every brown person in the Southwest would even be feasible, let alone constitutional.

    But yeah, that's my thought. Crimes like "driving without a valid license" or "loitering" can quickly become State felonies.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    -

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »

    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

    Atomika on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »

    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

    Pretty much this.

    As far as racial profiling goes, you can use race as part of your articulable facts, but you can't just say "He's brown so he's illegal". You have to build up your suspiscion through facts you can present. He speaks no English, wears warm clothing in the summer, carrying a backpack full of food from Mexico, smells like he's been walking through the desert for days.

    Of course most of our apprehensions don't happen in the middle of the town. They happen in the middle of the desert at night.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'll shovel horse manure if it pays well, for minimum wage though? Fuck that
    The thing is, the large number of illegals willing to shovel manure for minimum wage (or less) is what keeps wages low in certain industries.

    For someone from the ass-end of Mexico, a job shoveling shit in the US for minimum wage is a significant step up. That type of job isn't attractive to Americans, unless they're willing to drop their standard of living to that of illegal immigrants.

    Illegal immigration does the most harm to Americans at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. It depresses wages in low-skill and entry level jobs, thereby lowering the living standards of poor people.

    Basically, allowing large numbers of illegals into the country is a form of corporate welfare for certain industries. The rest of us are basically subsidizing labor costs for companies hiring illegals. On top of that, taxpayers get stuck with the bill for things like illegals' medical care and their disprorportionate crime and incarceration rate.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Personally, I'd really like to just work around the issue by taking major steps to making Mexico less of a hellhole. It's a significant danger to US citizens at the moment, from several standpoints, moreso than a lot of the garbage we get involved in overseas. I've felt for years that the money spent on the invasion of Iraq should instead have gone to unfuckering Mexico for the sake of the whole of the Americas. Letting a large, resource-rich nation right next door to us become a corrupt morass of human rights failures and corruption is terrible policy.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm as much of a "Development, fuck yeah, let's make a difference!" proponent as anyone, but even I can see the failure that is the argument of letting anyone in anywhere they want to go with no preconditions and no restrictions.

    The point of development is to elevate everyone up to the same level of awesomeness, not drag everyone down to the same level of hellishness.

    adytum on
  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    -

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
    The immigrant's gain in welfare is greater than the native's decline in welfare. No appeal to emotion needed. Just cold, hard, facts.

    The only role emotions do play in the argument is when one decides they need to devalue the immigrant in order to satisfy themselves that their gain in welfare is not worth the native's decline in welfare.
    If immigration makes an immigrant's life better, that's great. But, it's pretty much irrelevant because our government exists to protect the interests of Americans. Immigrants have their own government to take care of them, which is how things work.

    A government that does not put the needs of its own people first is missing the point of its existence.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
    The immigrant's gain in welfare is greater than the native's decline in welfare. No appeal to emotion needed. Just cold, hard, facts.

    The only role emotions do play in the argument is when one decides they need to devalue the immigrant in order to satisfy themselves that their gain in welfare is not worth the native's decline in welfare.

    You could use that logic to allow workers to bloat a country insanely because until workers rights and minimum wage go to shit it would always make sense to flood the country with more impoverished workers.

    People need to fix their own countries, not tell us were immoral for not opening our boarders. Legal immigration is more available than ever and I support further loosening and revising immigration policies. I don't support turning my country into a dumping ground for unskilled labour.

    Dman on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    The immigrant's gain in welfare is greater than the native's decline in welfare.

    For the first immigrant. What about the thousandth? The millionth? The billionth? What about the individual immigrants? Are they educated? Are they criminals?

    That's why we allow immigration, but restrict it.

    You fail at economics and policy.

    adytum on
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
    The immigrant's gain in welfare is greater than the native's decline in welfare. No appeal to emotion needed. Just cold, hard, facts.

    The only role emotions do play in the argument is when one decides they need to devalue the immigrant in order to satisfy themselves that their gain in welfare is not worth the native's decline in welfare.

    This may come as a surprise, but most Americans don't support a martyrdom based immigration policy, nor feel morally required to do so. I certainly only posit a duty to assist when it will not be a major sacrifice for the one who assists. Moreover, I'd argue that government officials are charged with making decisions in the best interests of America or their constituents. I've a very firm believe in enlightened self-interest, as I think helping others is often both morally right and economically sound, but our government has no right to donate both of America's kidneys to others.

    Allowing wages to be depressed has both short and long term consequences that are fairly serious, and is completely unthinkable in a country that has seen stagnant real wages like we have for decades. American policy needs to be dedicated towards increasing real wages and decreasing income inequality at home.

    I'm not arguing against all immigration, because anyone against all immigration is stupid. However, we have every legal and moral right to restrict our immigration based on domestic issues, and to use a variety of selfish and selfless criteria for determining eligibility for entry (I support some acceptance of refugees, even those without economically valuable skills).

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    QuetzatcoatlQuetzatcoatl Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Personally, I'd really like to just work around the issue by taking major steps to making Mexico less of a hellhole. It's a significant danger to US citizens at the moment, from several standpoints, moreso than a lot of the garbage we get involved in overseas. I've felt for years that the money spent on the invasion of Iraq should instead have gone to unfuckering Mexico for the sake of the whole of the Americas. Letting a large, resource-rich nation right next door to us become a corrupt morass of human rights failures and corruption is terrible policy.

    Dumping money into Mexico is not the solution, and the country as a whole is not a hellhole.

    There are a lot of misconceptions of what the real issues are in the country as well as why immigration happens and how corruption affects Mexican society.

    The way I have experienced it, corruption is a result of social values as much as wage differences and a lot of tension comes from the divide between the rich and the poor. The greatest need Mexico has is to distribute wealth more evenly and a shift in culture to stop tolerating bribes, and to stop giving them.

    Rural areas in Mexico are also almost a completely different country than the urban centers.

    Quetzatcoatl on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Corruption, violence, and the continued downward spiral of Mexico is a result of the drug trade. Full stop. If America really wanted to do anything to remedy the problem, Hillary Clinton would stop apologizing for American drug use, and start working on liberalizing our drug laws and policy.

    adytum on
  • Options
    QuetzatcoatlQuetzatcoatl Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Corruption, violence, and the continued downward spiral of Mexico is a result of the drug trade. Full stop. If America really wanted to do anything to remedy the problem, Hillary Clinton would stop apologizing for American drug use, and start working on liberalizing our drug laws and policy.

    Yes, drug use in the US is at least partly responsible for financing the current cartel wars, or even the majority, but, you are still ignoring the past 200 years or so of the country's history and the effects that has had on policy, culture and the overall state of the country. I'd also like to know what you mean by continued downward spiral...

    I know people in Mexico have been suffering from violence due to the drug trade, but even if all the cartels magically dissapeared tomorrow, it would not stop immigration to the US.

    The country's dependance on oil, the lacking educational systems and the current economic crisis are also really important in understanding the country.

    Quetzatcoatl on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm just talking about current events. The violence and corruption has been on a huge upswing recently. The military and police are afraid of the cartels, who are more well armed and better financed than the government. Farmers find it more profitable to produce black tar heroin than crops. Etc., etc.

    Obviously Mexico has other problems, that is without a doubt true. But those other problems are actually quite similar to what the rest of the Americas as well as a number of African and Asian nations face. They are not insurmountable, if they are dealt with properly.

    Also: In my comment, I was just responding to the comments about Mexico specifically, not about Mexican immigration.

    adytum on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
    The immigrant's gain in welfare is greater than the native's decline in welfare. No appeal to emotion needed. Just cold, hard, facts.

    The only role emotions do play in the argument is when one decides they need to devalue the immigrant in order to satisfy themselves that their gain in welfare is not worth the native's decline in welfare.
    If immigration makes an immigrant's life better, that's great. But, it's pretty much irrelevant because our government exists to protect the interests of Americans. Immigrants have their own government to take care of them, which is how things work.

    A government that does not put the needs of its own people first is missing the point of its existence.

    But beyond that, all human beings have a certain level of human rights that most states have agreed to respecting. I'm not saying that we should give all immigrants the vote the moment they cross the border (even though we did do that up until 1910), but states are not only responsible for the citizens within the state.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
    The immigrant's gain in welfare is greater than the native's decline in welfare. No appeal to emotion needed. Just cold, hard, facts.

    The only role emotions do play in the argument is when one decides they need to devalue the immigrant in order to satisfy themselves that their gain in welfare is not worth the native's decline in welfare.
    If immigration makes an immigrant's life better, that's great. But, it's pretty much irrelevant because our government exists to protect the interests of Americans. Immigrants have their own government to take care of them, which is how things work.

    A government that does not put the needs of its own people first is missing the point of its existence.

    But beyond that, all human beings have a certain level of human rights that most states have agreed to respecting. I'm not saying that we should give all immigrants the vote the moment they cross the border (even though we did do that up until 1910), but states are not only responsible for the citizens within the state.
    Of course. No one is saying non-citizens in the US, even illegal immigrants, don't have rights. The Constitution covers them, mostly.

    But, if you're arguing that there is some human right to immigrate into a country, that's simply not true. There's simply no basis, legally or historically, for that claim. In the US, for example, Congress could quite Constitutionally pass a law cancelling all visas and permanent residency permits, and that would not be a violation of anyone's rights.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The discrepancy over illegal vs. legal is not meaningful. As has been stated, they aren't taking jobs, changing culture, using public services, etc., because they are illegal, they are doing those things because they are poor and immigrant, legal or not. Crying "but they're illegal" is a mask - their status of "illegal" in and of itself is entirely up to us, and would entirely not exist if we had open borders.

    I got quite a lol when legion suggested that open borders would only lead to more illegal immigration. Did no one else catch that? Not only does that logical failure betray the personal fact that he's using "illegal" as a distracting misnomer for feelings that actually have nothing to do legality, but it also emphasizes the point that if them being illegal was really the primary beef, or even a significant differentiator between what's wrong and what's not wrong, well then the cheapest, simplest, most obvious solution would be amnesty and open borders. Then none of them would be illegal anymore! But of course that isn't what anti-immigration wants, because the mere fact that they are illegal or not is by itself really not relevant to the actual anti-immigration. Many anti-immigrants may actually believe it to be relevant, but this belief is easily exposed for its lack of reason. Which should prompt the anti-immigrant to either abandon his stance or else ponder and explain the true nature of his justifications for the stance.
    Importing workers who pay little into the tax base and use a larger percentage of assistance isn't exactly a sustainable phenomenon.
    Nor does it accurately describe any relevant topic in this issue. They pay sales tax and often payroll taxes with much less access to the proceeds of those taxes. They average out to a net positive on our economy despite the unskilled poor citizens they tend to displace. The high number of them who are upside-down on what they pay vs. what they get are not special with regards to their economic status. That is again the human rights issue the essay is getting at. Do people without means deserve what can be provided to them as a moral issue, i.e., a human right, or because they are a citizen of a government?

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/20061879 - "Changes in the level of immigration have an uncertain effect on fiscal balance, with the sign dependent on parameter choices and assumptions. However, the effect, whether positive or negative, is small in magnitude relative to the overall U.S. fiscal imbalance."
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »

    Ah, the old go-for-the-heart technique, accusing opponents of being inhuman monsters.

    "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
    Are you joking? That article was a thorough econometric analysis seeking to quantify how much more important a citizen's well-being must be over an immigrant's in order to justify anti-immigration on the grounds of citizens' well-being as more important. The claims of inhuman monsters or jerks was mostly tongue-in-cheek sarcasm about the results of the calculations. I find it hilarious that anyone from an anti-immigrant stance would pretend to be on the side of facts and decry table-banging.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Of course. No one is saying non-citizens in the US, even illegal immigrants, don't have rights. The Constitution covers them, mostly.

    But, if you're arguing that there is some human right to immigrate into a country, that's simply not true. There's simply no basis, legally or historically, for that claim. In the US, for example, Congress could quite Constitutionally pass a law cancelling all visas and permanent residency permits, and that would not be a violation of anyone's rights.

    I agree with this, but the problem is how one enforces that. He's smelly brown and doesn't know a lot of English doesn't entirely cut it.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I agree with this, but the problem is how one enforces that. He's smelly brown and doesn't know a lot of English doesn't entirely cut it.
    This is inherent in the rather troublesome or contradictory views many of us have on concepts like "being" illegal, sovereignty, welfare, citizenship, rights, etc.

    Yar on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar, say that again without all the sophistry.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm not sure where to jump in on this.

    The statistics about spending and taxes and economy is all moonspeak to me. One side says one thing and points to numbers on a spreadsheet, the other side says the exact opposite and points to other numbers on a spreadsheet and they all look good to me.

    I do know this. The town I grew up in? DESTROYED by rampant illegal immigration. Growing up it was never the greatest place to begin with. Just boring mostly. But in 4 years it turned into a mexican ghetto. Places I used to go as a kid just aren't safe anymore and mostly spanish speaking. Businesses are boarded up and closed down. A lot of places you can't drive through anymore because people can and do get carjacked. People have been getting stabbed at the local malls. And getting back to driving? You take your life in your hands on those roads because most of those people drive without a license, or any understanding of what the lights or road signs mean. Or maybe they just don't care. So enjoy getting hit and run. In fact, if you get into an accident at all, just expect the other person to run. Because they are illegal, without a license or insurance, and don't want to get deported.

    I also know that all my friends being laid off can't find a job for the life of them. The careers they are trained in aren't hiring, and anything they would want just to get a paycheck will gladly hire an illegal worker with a stolen social security number over them any day of the week.

    I'm not sure about the grander socio-economic or rights issues. I do know that unchecked illegal immigration fucked my home town to shit and back though.

    Namrok on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I agree with this, but the problem is how one enforces that. He's smelly brown and doesn't know a lot of English doesn't entirely cut it.
    This is inherent in the rather troublesome or contradictory views many of us have on concepts like "being" illegal, sovereignty, welfare, citizenship, rights, etc.
    Expand on that, please. Personally, I think my views on all of this issues are pretty straightforward and consistent.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

Sign In or Register to comment.