Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

1356736

Posts

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    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.

    This demonstrates a lack of understanding, as I see it. The vast majority of people I've spoken with are at least in favor of controlled immigration, and what they are not in favor of is completely open borders.

    The reason illegal immigration is especially odious is because it demonstrates a complete lack of respect for our sovereignty and laws, as well as frustrating our ability to set good domestic policy. Illegal immigrants are people guilty of setting a bad first impression by not giving a shit, like someone who breaks into your house and then asks why you are angry with them.

    It's entirely reasonable to be pro-immigration while simultaneously having an objection to people illegally trespassing on US soil.
    Namrok wrote: »
    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.

    This is just an extreme version of why immigration should be regulated. By appropriately controlling immigration in regards to number, destination, and occupation, you can maximize the benefits while minimizing harm. This is important both in communities that work (good economy, good culture, etc) and communities in trouble (barely enough jobs to go around, already experiencing some crime issues).

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar, say that again without all the sophistry.

    Not sure exactly which part you meant, but here are a couple of key items. First, you said:
    Opening the borders isn't going to do anything other than bring more illegal aliens in the US to compete with an already overstressed US labor market.

    Which only proves that you are using the word "illegal" as one of those "heart-string-pulling" emotional words. If the borders were open, they wouldn't be illegal. So, no, if we opened the borders and gave everyone amnesty, there would not be more "illegal" aliens, there would be far less. The issue of someone being "illegal" would be completely solved and there would be no such things as illegal immigrants, only legal ones. Now, assuming that isn't what you'd prefer, then why don't you can the misdirection about legality and be honest about what bothers you about immigrants?

    The fact that you still used the word "illegal" to describe immigrants in a hypothetical situation where illegal immigration didn't exist only proves what I already knew: that you use "illegal" as a code word for something else that you don't like about immigrants, something that has little to do with legality. It makes your feelings on the matter sound more legitimate, even to yourself, but it doesn't make any damned sense.

    You've also said a whole lot of nonsense besides. That Mexico has the most billionaires. That immigrants take far more out of our economy and tax revenues than they put in. Sure, studies vary on this, but all of them agree that the effect is tiny, whether it is positive or negative. You answered an economic study from an academic on immigrant tax revenues by quoting a trumped-up online newpaper article about tax fraud that happened to be committed by illegal aliens... as if natives didn't also engage in tax fraud schemes, as if the fact that the criminals in that article being immigrants had anything to do with it, or as if that proved anything about what immigrants pay or get from taxes.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    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.
    This is completely illogical. How is it welfare? How are we subsidizing anything? What it does is allow more people who would love to get a job making $5/hr to find more employers who'd love to pay them that much. Win-win. It has nothing to do with you or anyone else. The guy who wanted to do the same work for twice as much gets hit with a harsh reality, that's for sure. Maybe he can try to explain his woes in terms that would be understood by the guy who is thrilled to make less.

    Can you provide anything to back up these claims that they have a higher crime and incarceration rate? (hint: no you can't.)
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Expand on that, please. Personally, I think my views on all of this issues are pretty straightforward and consistent.
    How can one's being be illegal? Does that even make sense in modern society? And what is a border? Are we feudalists, or monarchs? Does Obama have the divine right of a king to claim ownership and trespass of any land in the U.S.? Does our goverment really have "sovereignty" over an area of land, or do the borders merely determine juris diction, like the borders between states? If I invite someone to rent my property and they willingly pay me, or if I offer them a job in my field and they weagerly show up and do it well, from where comes the authority for a third party to come along and tell us that he is on my property "illegally"? Is it not my property and my decision? What is the logical basis of citizenry? Does popping out of your mom's cooch onto U.S. dirt somehow make you more worthy than the guy who actually had to put a little will and effort into getting here? If welfare is based in morality, how does that morality differentiate between citizens and non-citizens? If taking more out of public coffer than you put in is a bad thing, don't we have a lot to clean up among our own citizens before we go blaming foreigners? I can go on and on.
    This demonstrates a lack of understanding, as I see it. The vast majority of people I've spoken with are at least in favor of controlled immigration, and what they are not in favor of is completely open borders.

    The reason illegal immigration is especially odious is because it demonstrates a complete lack of respect for our sovereignty and laws, as well as frustrating our ability to set good domestic policy. Illegal immigrants are people guilty of setting a bad first impression by not giving a shit, like someone who breaks into your house and then asks why you are angry with them.

    It's entirely reasonable to be pro-immigration while simultaneously having an objection to people illegally trespassing on US soil.
    I don't see how much of this applies. It isn't trespassing - the U.S. government doesn't own very much of the land between the borders. There's quite a massively significant difference between being called illegal when you're trespassing and being called illegal when you are one someone's land at their consentual invitation... yet you suppose this is an analogy. And your problem with illegal immigration seems to be quite symbolic; all about what an illegal immigrant "demonstrates" and a lot of jibberish in which you project onto the immigrant notions of respect and setting impressions and other things that I doubt many of them would acknowledge as accurate or important.

    Yar on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar, the problem is your argument works from a perfect world scenario, combined with arguing over semantics (your entire issue with the word "illegal alien", which is a perfectly fine legal term) and disguised appeals to emotions while making not so hidden allegations as to the alleged racism and small mindedness of anyone who sees things differently than you.

    There are sites that argue the pros and cons of America's immigration problem, with plenty of statistics. That's what we're arguing here with, facts. Not with how you think things should be in your perfect world.

    So argue from the facts, and stop pounding the table. Some of us are trying to have a discussion over an issue here without your massive posts, that seemed primarily designed to draw attention to you and ignore basic legal conventions that have been around for hundred of years.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    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.
    This is completely illogical. How is it welfare? How are we subsidizing anything? What it does is allow more people who would love to get a job making $5/hr to find more employers who'd love to pay them that much. Win-win. It has nothing to do with you or anyone else. The guy who wanted to do the same work for twice as much gets hit with a harsh reality, that's for sure. Maybe he can try to explain his woes in terms that would be understood by the guy who is thrilled to make less.

    Can you provide anything to back up these claims that they have a higher crime and incarceration rate? (hint: no you can't.)
    Follow me here- illegal immigrants tend to be poorer than Americans, on the whole. Which means they are more likely to relay on social services, such as food stamps, more likely to not pay their medical bills at public hospitals and more likely to commit crimes. Basically, the employers of illegal immigrants get the benefit of cheaper wages, while passing on a whole bunch of costs to the rest of us.

    That's the public subsidy- the taxpayers are being forced to shoulder the costs inherent in letting a generally uneducated and poor group of people into the country, while the employers who hire them get the benefit of saving money on wages.
    How can one's being be illegal? Does that even make sense in modern society? And what is a border? Are we feudalists, or monarchs? Does Obama have the divine right of a king to claim ownership and trespass of any land in the U.S.? Does our goverment really have "sovereignty" over an area of land, or do the borders merely determine juris diction, like the borders between states? If I invite someone to rent my property and they willingly pay me, or if I offer them a job in my field and they weagerly show up and do it well, from where comes the authority for a third party to come along and tell us that he is on my property "illegally"? Is it not my property and my decision? What is the logical basis of citizenry? Does popping out of your mom's cooch onto U.S. dirt somehow make you more worthy than the guy who actually had to put a little will and effort into getting here? If welfare is based in morality, how does that morality differentiate between citizens and non-citizens? If taking more out of public coffer than you put in is a bad thing, don't we have a lot to clean up among our own citizens before we go blaming foreigners? I can go on and on.
    Go on if you like, but you're just spouting nonsense. No one's "being" is illegal. We're referring to their immigration status. But you knew that.

    Simply put, most of your questions are completely irrelevant. Every country has an absolute right to decide whether or not to allow immigrants into their country. Illegal immigrants have broken our laws, and they should be deported. If we change that law, fine. But your philosophical musings about whether a person's "being" can be illegal are best left to dorm room political discussion sessions.

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

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Expand on that, please. Personally, I think my views on all of this issues are pretty straightforward and consistent.
    How can one's being be illegal? Does that even make sense in modern society? And what is a border? Are we feudalists, or monarchs? Does Obama have the divine right of a king to claim ownership and trespass of any land in the U.S.? Does our goverment really have "sovereignty" over an area of land, or do the borders merely determine juris diction, like the borders between states? If I invite someone to rent my property and they willingly pay me, or if I offer them a job in my field and they weagerly show up and do it well, from where comes the authority for a third party to come along and tell us that he is on my property "illegally"? Is it not my property and my decision? What is the logical basis of citizenry? Does popping out of your mom's cooch onto U.S. dirt somehow make you more worthy than the guy who actually had to put a little will and effort into getting here? If welfare is based in morality, how does that morality differentiate between citizens and non-citizens? If taking more out of public coffer than you put in is a bad thing, don't we have a lot to clean up among our own citizens before we go blaming foreigners? I can go on and on.

    People have the right to self-determine, which requires national sovereignty, and which requires borders. You cannot make the argument that immigrants have no effects outside of their employer's property, so this same argument applies to them as applies to dumping carcinogens into the groundwater. Since immigrants have policy implications across all aspects of society, a single renter or employer has no right to unilaterally invite them.
    This demonstrates a lack of understanding, as I see it. The vast majority of people I've spoken with are at least in favor of controlled immigration, and what they are not in favor of is completely open borders.

    The reason illegal immigration is especially odious is because it demonstrates a complete lack of respect for our sovereignty and laws, as well as frustrating our ability to set good domestic policy. Illegal immigrants are people guilty of setting a bad first impression by not giving a shit, like someone who breaks into your house and then asks why you are angry with them.

    It's entirely reasonable to be pro-immigration while simultaneously having an objection to people illegally trespassing on US soil.
    I don't see how much of this applies. It isn't trespassing - the U.S. government doesn't own very much of the land between the borders. There's quite a massively significant difference between being called illegal when you're trespassing and being called illegal when you are one someone's land at their consentual invitation... yet you suppose this is an analogy. And your problem with illegal immigration seems to be quite symbolic; all about what an illegal immigrant "demonstrates" and a lot of jibberish in which you project onto the immigrant notions of respect and setting impressions and other things that I doubt many of them would acknowledge as accurate or important.

    They might say it is not important, but breaking a nation's laws as soon as you step on its soil is pretty clear disrespectful. I personally consider myself disrespected by people who don't give a shit about our policy concerns.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    What it does is allow more people who would love to get a job making $5/hr to find more employers who'd love to pay them that much. Win-win. It has nothing to do with you or anyone else. The guy who wanted to do the same work for twice as much gets hit with a harsh reality, that's for sure. Maybe he can try to explain his woes in terms that would be understood by the guy who is thrilled to make less.

    Yar this is where the real issue lies.

    You propose we open the boarder making our country into the destination of choice for all poor unskilled people of the world.

    Then, since preventing them from working for below minimum wage and undercutting our existing work force would be impossible anyways you propose abolishing minimum wage altogether.

    You're left with a huge population of people living way below minimum wage, both locals and immigrants.

    That doesn't sound like an improvement on the status quo in my country to me.

    The people on this land who have elected the government to represent them have every right to collectively decide who is allowed onto their collective property (the country).

    I don't see any difference between that and the ability to decide who is allowed into your home.

    Dman on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You wouldn't have to abolish minimum wage, it would likely go down a degree on its own. The boom in employees would probably increase the number of employers immensely--it would go from being farmers doing day labor to smaller companies because holy shit you would have so many people.

    But Yar makes a good point about the term illegal.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You wouldn't have to abolish minimum wage, it would likely go down a degree on its own. The boom in employees would probably increase the number of employers immensely--it would go from being farmers doing day labor to smaller companies because holy shit you would have so many people.

    Minimum wage going down would be horrible for this country. Also, an influx of laborers would not of any necessity increase the number of jobs, especially as our unemployment is currently high and unskilled labor is available anywhere, so there is no reason for it to attract a surge of employers.

    Honestly, how can someone take a high school level economics course and conclude, "What America needs is fewer to go around and worse opportunities for people of low socioeconomic status."
    But Yar makes a good point about the term illegal.

    Not really. It's sophistry. Unregistered, unchecked, excess immigration is illegal for a damn good reason, and changing the law to make it legal wouldn't help. If we removed the requirement of consent from sex, there wouldn't be any more "rapes" but that wouldn't stop having sexual relations at knifepoint from being a bad thing.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    But Modern Man, won't the effective business subsidy provided by illegal labor trickle down to the rest of us, thus counterbalancing the costs of illegal social services? My Reaganomics is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

    It seems to me that if a dude hops a fence, then spends six brutal months picking strawberries at 4$ an hour, then breaks an ankle and hits up the ER for free service just like everyone else, we should probably be thanking the guy for his contribution to our strawberry production rather than condemning him for hopping our fence or getting his ankle fixed up. The only people who have any right to be pissed in this scenario were hoping to pick strawberries at $8 an hour because of the enormously privileged American vagina they popped out of, and frankly, fuck them and their needs. I have no more obligation to them than to the friends of Ned Ludd*.

    *Yes, in this analogy Mexicans are power looms. If anyone is offended by this, I apologize. It was not my intention to conflate a national identity with a strikingly effective piece of textile manufacturing equipment.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    But Modern Man, won't the effective business subsidy provided by illegal labor trickle down to the rest of us, thus counterbalancing the costs of illegal social services? My Reaganomics is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

    It seems to me that if a dude hops a fence, then spends six brutal months picking strawberries at 4$ an hour, then breaks an ankle and hits up the ER for free service just like everyone else, we should probably be thanking the guy for his contribution to our strawberry production rather than condemning him for hopping our fence or getting his ankle fixed up. The only people who have any right to be pissed in this scenario were hoping to pick strawberries at $8 an hour because of the enormously privileged American vagina they popped out of, and frankly, fuck them and their needs. I have no more obligation to them than to the friends of Ned Ludd*.

    *Yes, in this analogy Mexicans are power looms. If anyone is offended by this, I apologize. It was not my intention to conflate a national identity with a strikingly effective piece of textile manufacturing equipment.

    Assuming you're serious about the bolded, if you can't figure a way to do the job for $4 an hour in your own country and just sell the product to US customers and think instead the US is morally obligated to provide you a job it seems you're the one with an entitlement complex.

    Dman on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Expand on that, please. Personally, I think my views on all of this issues are pretty straightforward and consistent.
    How can one's being be illegal? Does that even make sense in modern society? And what is a border? Are we feudalists, or monarchs? Does Obama have the divine right of a king to claim ownership and trespass of any land in the U.S.? Does our goverment really have "sovereignty" over an area of land, or do the borders merely determine juris diction, like the borders between states? If I invite someone to rent my property and they willingly pay me, or if I offer them a job in my field and they weagerly show up and do it well, from where comes the authority for a third party to come along and tell us that he is on my property "illegally"? Is it not my property and my decision? What is the logical basis of citizenry? Does popping out of your mom's cooch onto U.S. dirt somehow make you more worthy than the guy who actually had to put a little will and effort into getting here? If welfare is based in morality, how does that morality differentiate between citizens and non-citizens? If taking more out of public coffer than you put in is a bad thing, don't we have a lot to clean up among our own citizens before we go blaming foreigners? I can go on and on.

    People have the right to self-determine, which requires national sovereignty, and which requires borders. You cannot make the argument that immigrants have no effects outside of their employer's property, so this same argument applies to them as applies to dumping carcinogens into the groundwater. Since immigrants have policy implications across all aspects of society, a single renter or employer has no right to unilaterally invite them.

    Just so you know, Yar has revealed in previous immigration debates that he does not believe nations have the right to police their own borders or restrict immigration in any form, so any arguments based founded on that belief will be viewed as invalid on their face. Granted, due to the Yar Racism Reflex, I have made a point of not engaging him in any discussion on immigration for just over three years now, and his views may have changed, but in all likelihood, we are within 24 hours of him accusing you of hating brown people.

    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
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso 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.


    The fact that you're missing is that our country cannot lift up all these impoverished people without harming its citizens.

    And the duty of the government is to it's people, not a group of foreign people.

    Also, charity isn't charity if you are forcing it out of people, which you are perfectly happy to do. So you're basically a communist*.



    *I am not using this term ironically.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    But Modern Man, won't the effective business subsidy provided by illegal labor trickle down to the rest of us, thus counterbalancing the costs of illegal social services? My Reaganomics is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

    It seems to me that if a dude hops a fence, then spends six brutal months picking strawberries at 4$ an hour, then breaks an ankle and hits up the ER for free service just like everyone else, we should probably be thanking the guy for his contribution to our strawberry production rather than condemning him for hopping our fence or getting his ankle fixed up. The only people who have any right to be pissed in this scenario were hoping to pick strawberries at $8 an hour because of the enormously privileged American vagina they popped out of, and frankly, fuck them and their needs. I have no more obligation to them than to the friends of Ned Ludd*.

    *Yes, in this analogy Mexicans are power looms. If anyone is offended by this, I apologize. It was not my intention to conflate a national identity with a strikingly effective piece of textile manufacturing equipment.

    Assuming you're serious about the bolded, if you can't figure a way to do the job for $4 an hour in your own country and just sell the product to US customers and think instead the US is morally obligated to provide you a job it seems you're the one with an entitlement complex.

    When I was working in Imperial County (Inland California on the border), one of the things I did was track economic indicators. Back when the country was looking at 5-6% unemployment, Imperial was looking at triple that rate. Last year, more than one in four people there were unemployed, a statistic matched (unsurprisingly) only by the ag lands in the central valley. Of course, this must be because Americans simply won't do these jobs and not because the glut of cheap (and often illegal) labor has driven wages to the point where people can do better for themselves by staying unemployed.

    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
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Where does Yar live? I notice geography makes up a pretty big part of how you view the entire immigration issue in the States.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Honestly, how can someone take a high school level economics course and conclude, "What America needs is fewer to go around and worse opportunities for people of low socioeconomic status."
    Because thinking that wealth is zero sum is something that only people who don't understand economics would suggest.
    Where does Yar live? I notice geography makes up a pretty big part of how you view the entire immigration issue in the States.

    I love the suggestion that people who don't live in the Southwest don't understand immigration that's present in this and other statements you've made. Like, seriously, I fucking love it.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010

    I love the suggestion that people who don't live in the Southwest don't understand immigration that's present in this and other statements you've made. Like, seriously, I fucking love it.

    Well while you're worrying your head off over possible what ifs and wringing your hands about how terrible it is that those poor Mexicans are being deported in a humane and lawful fashion, there are ranchers and Border Patrol agents being killed in the southwest.

    There's a sign in Cochise County that reads "If this was Scottsdale, the National Guard would be here."
    Because thinking that wealth is zero sum is something that only people who don't understand economics would suggest.

    I'm curious as to what you do, outside of debate like someone who's taken a few college classes, that makes you someone who understands economics. Because if its anything like your understanding of the law, I'm sure its not going to be too broad or deep.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    TechBoyTechBoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I find that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are some of the most hard working and driven people out there.

    I'd imagine it has something to do with the fact that in order to be an immigrant, you have to by definition leave your home and family behind. I'd wager that a willingness to leave everything behind and start fresh in a foreign land is indicative of two things: 1) The desire to have a better life, for both yourself and your children and 2) A willingness to do whatever it takes to realize that dream.

    Those qualities are both admirable qualities. Those are qualities every American is supposed to have, this is the land of opportunity.

    I think what people get hung up about is what immigration looks like on the surface. Illegal immigrants come to this country with clear disregard for our laws, coalesce into "ghettos", snatch up low wage jobs, and fester in our underbelly.

    But look at it again: You're an extremely poor Mexican laborer with no hope for a better life. You take a huge risk and hop the border seeking jobs and opportunity in a new country. You don't really speak the language, so you go to areas that have high concentrations of other Mexicans so they can help you out with housing and finding work. You do whatever low paying job you can find because you need money to eat and because you simply don't have the skills to be something more useful to society. All the while you're raising your children and putting them through school.

    You'll probably never become anything more than a low skill laborer, but you do honest work for the rest of your life and while you're poor by American standards, you're leagues better off than you would have been by staying in Mexico. What's more, the children you raise in this country will grow up without your language and skill barriers. They'll go off to college and become doctors and scientist and lawyers and all the other professions out there. Ordinary Americans, in other words.

    And before people start with "blah blah idealized immigrant fantasy" I grew up in LA. I went to school with kids from illegal immigrant families. Kids who had to do their parents taxes because they couldn't speak english. Sure not all of them go to college, not all of them become so much better off than their parents, but plenty of them did.

    I think trying to fight illegal immigration is silly and futile. Immigration has worked out fine for America in the past and we should really be focusing not on trying to snoop out the immigrants that are here and arresting or deporting them, but helping them to faster integrate into our society so we can better reap the rewards.

    TechBoy on
    tf2_sig.png
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Okay techboy, I can work with that. Let's start simply.

    To you, what are the rewards of illegally entering the US?

    And be advised, no one is coming down on -legal- immigration, though there are some issues there as well. Right now we're talking about illegal aliens. So let's keep it there.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Honestly, how can someone take a high school level economics course and conclude, "What America needs is fewer to go around and worse opportunities for people of low socioeconomic status."
    Because thinking that wealth is zero sum is something that only people who don't understand economics would suggest.
    Where does Yar live? I notice geography makes up a pretty big part of how you view the entire immigration issue in the States.

    I love the suggestion that people who don't live in the Southwest don't understand immigration that's present in this and other statements you've made. Like, seriously, I fucking love it.


    It's no coincidence that most of the open borders advocates do not live in the regions most impacted by illegal immigration.

    So go ahead and love it. Love it long time.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Honestly, how can someone take a high school level economics course and conclude, "What America needs is fewer to go around and worse opportunities for people of low socioeconomic status."
    Because thinking that wealth is zero sum is something that only people who don't understand economics would suggest.

    You understand what happens to normal wages relative to the scarcity of workers, right? And since the average American is a net debtor, an increase in both normal wages and inflation often is generally quite beneficial.
    TechBoy wrote: »
    I think trying to fight illegal immigration is silly and futile. Immigration has worked out fine for America in the past and we should really be focusing not on trying to snoop out the immigrants that are here and arresting or deporting them, but helping them to faster integrate into our society so we can better reap the rewards.

    Only futile if we do a shitty job. Deploy a moderate military presence along the border and it'd stop right quick. Now, that might not be an ideal situation from a cost / benefit or moral perspective, but we have the means to do it.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    TechBoy wrote: »
    I think trying to fight illegal immigration is silly and futile. Immigration has worked out fine for America in the past and we should really be focusing not on trying to snoop out the immigrants that are here and arresting or deporting them, but helping them to faster integrate into our society so we can better reap the rewards.

    Only futile if we do a shitty job. Deploy a moderate military presence along the border and it'd stop right quick. Now, that might not be an ideal situation from a cost / benefit or moral perspective, but we have the means to do it.

    Eh, probably not so much. Plus, PR nightmare. Plus, massive waste.


    The real, feasible, and actually easiest way to reduce illegal immigration is simply eliminate the reasons why they come. Mandate strict background checks on all payroll hires, up the penalty on willfully disobeying hiring laws, give officials other than ICE and INS authority to enforce citizenship laws, and get rid of "anchor baby" laws.

    If getting a job is only possible with citizenship or legal alien status, there's no reason to flock to the US for illegal work.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The real, feasible, and actually easiest way to reduce illegal immigration is simply eliminate the reasons why they come. Mandate strict background checks on all payroll hires, up the penalty on willfully disobeying hiring laws, give officials other than ICE and INS authority to enforce citizenship laws, and get rid of "anchor baby" laws.

    If getting a job is only possible with citizenship or legal alien status, there's no reason to flock to the US for illegal work.

    'Only possible with citizenship' ... pffft. For the past week, I've been collecting estimates for tree removal from my property. I have five estimates so far - three recommended via the internet and two recommended by word of mouth. The former three priced the job at around $400, their estimates included their address and logo in the letterhead. The latter two priced the job at $200, their estimates were written on the backs of their business cards (no address on the card), and their English was limited so I spoke to them in Spanish. It's no stretch of the imagination to assume the latter two visitors were illegal immigrants who were self-employed and working out of their pickup trucks. Regulation can't touch those guys but you want to punish me for hiring them?

    I'm going to go with one of the more professional $400 guys, though, because if someone loses a finger to a chainsaw on my property, they'll have insurance.

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    The real, feasible, and actually easiest way to reduce illegal immigration is simply eliminate the reasons why they come. Mandate strict background checks on all payroll hires, up the penalty on willfully disobeying hiring laws, give officials other than ICE and INS authority to enforce citizenship laws, and get rid of "anchor baby" laws.

    If getting a job is only possible with citizenship or legal alien status, there's no reason to flock to the US for illegal work.

    'Only possible with citizenship' ... pffft. For the past week, I've been collecting estimates for tree removal from my property. I have five estimates so far - three recommended via the internet and two recommended by word of mouth. The former three priced the job at around $400, their estimates included their address and logo in the letterhead. The latter two priced the job at $200, their estimates were written on the backs of their business cards (no address on the card), and their English was limited so I spoke to them in Spanish. It's no stretch of the imagination to assume the latter two visitors were illegal immigrants who were self-employed and working out of their pickup trucks. Regulation can't touch those guys but you want to punish me for hiring them?

    I'm going to go with one of the more professional $400 guys, though, because if someone loses a finger to a chainsaw on my property, they'll have insurance.

    If they are evading taxes, you know they're evading taxes, and you hire them anyway, you can be held liable for conspiracy to evade taxes.

    Also, like you said, you're liable for injuries- better make sure they're insured and using insured subs!

    adytum on
  • Options
    TechBoyTechBoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Okay techboy, I can work with that. Let's start simply.

    To you, what are the rewards of illegally entering the US?

    And be advised, no one is coming down on -legal- immigration, though there are some issues there as well. Right now we're talking about illegal aliens. So let's keep it there.

    Well for the illegal immigrant himself the benefits are massive. Again, extreme poverty in Mexico, limited opportunities, etc. etc.

    But I guess if you are asking what's in it for America, and don't think giving immigrants a shot at a better life is a meaningful goal in and of itself, well I would say what America gains is a generation of immigrant children.

    Mom and Dad might not know a lick of english, not really have any worthwhile skills, and be happy with just having a roof over their head, but you can bet their kids growing up here, going through public school, absorbing American culture through the media will want more. And like their parents their relative poverty will drive them to achieve, but unlike their parents they will have the education and skills to be more than just low class workers.

    Yes, I will admit that probably only a minority of illegal immigrant children go off to college and become much better off than their parents, but I would argue that this is a failing of our public school systems, of the difficulty of social mobility and how many factors conspire to make escaping poverty difficult rather than some indication that illegal immigration is terrible for this country.

    I think trying to erect a wall along the border, or upping the military presence to stop illegal immigration is a massively unrealistic endeavor. That border is huuuuuuuge, and even if we are successful, all we end up doing is keeping out the kind of people this country should be encouraging to enter our country.

    The people that come from Mexico are poor, but they won't stay that way if we give them the opportunity to be more.

    TechBoy on
    tf2_sig.png
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Not to mention that the larger proportion of hispanic kids who are going to be paying off soooo many debts. That hispanics have more kids than the American average is going to be a very good thing soon.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I agree that talk of additional walls or military along the boarder is silly but tech boy and ethan smith you have both just given some reason why we encourage legal immigration, which I am for.

    What you have not done is explain why we should encourage what is currently illegal immigration.

    Dman on
  • Options
    TechBoyTechBoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't think we're encouraging illegal immigration so much as permitting it.

    I don't know enough to say whether completely Open-Borders would be good or bad. Maybe a large sudden influx of low-skill immigrants will cause more harm than good, maybe it won't. I dunno.

    But I am in favor of amnesty for the illegals already here, and for upping legal immigration.

    EDIT: And we permit illegal immigration because, honestly, the cost of enforcing it probably isn't worth whatever benefit people think we get from enforcing it.

    TechBoy on
    tf2_sig.png
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    TechBoy wrote: »
    Okay techboy, I can work with that. Let's start simply.

    To you, what are the rewards of illegally entering the US?

    And be advised, no one is coming down on -legal- immigration, though there are some issues there as well. Right now we're talking about illegal aliens. So let's keep it there.

    Well for the illegal immigrant himself the benefits are massive. Again, extreme poverty in Mexico, limited opportunities, etc. etc.

    But I guess if you are asking what's in it for America, and don't think giving immigrants a shot at a better life is a meaningful goal in and of itself, well I would say what America gains is a generation of immigrant children.

    Mom and Dad might not know a lick of english, not really have any worthwhile skills, and be happy with just having a roof over their head, but you can bet their kids growing up here, going through public school, absorbing American culture through the media will want more. And like their parents their relative poverty will drive them to achieve, but unlike their parents they will have the education and skills to be more than just low class workers.

    Yes, I will admit that probably only a minority of illegal immigrant children go off to college and become much better off than their parents, but I would argue that this is a failing of our public school systems, of the difficulty of social mobility and how many factors conspire to make escaping poverty difficult rather than some indication that illegal immigration is terrible for this country.

    The people that come from Mexico are poor, but they won't stay that way if we give them the opportunity to be more.

    And these same statements don't apply to impoverished American children who aren't getting the assistance they need to succeed how?
    I think trying to erect a wall along the border, or upping the military presence to stop illegal immigration is a massively unrealistic endeavor. That border is huuuuuuuge, and even if we are successful, all we end up doing is keeping out the kind of people this country should be encouraging to enter our country.

    The problem w/ unsupervised, unregulated immigration is not everyone who gets here is that kind of person. The conmen, thieves, rapists, and murderers aren't going to be a benefit. A minority to be sure, but no reason to ignore them. Domestic dirt bags are enough.
    TechBoy wrote: »
    I don't think we're encouraging illegal immigration so much as permitting it.

    I don't know enough to say whether completely Open-Borders would be good or bad. Maybe a large sudden influx of low-skill immigrants will cause more harm than good, maybe it won't. I dunno.

    It would be bad for Americans. I'm less concerned about Mexicans, to be honest.

    So long as intelligently implemented, increasing the amount of legal immigration could be good for everyone. As an example, it'd be better for local economies to distribute a few families here and there, rather than allow economy destroying amounts of immigrants to congregate in a few communities that cannot handle an extra 1000 unskilled workers and their 500 children in a short period of time.

    Besides, I'd at least want to be closed enough to keep convicted criminals from immigrating here.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, I don't think that techboy and I are for just letting whomever into our country. But this zero sum bullshit is ridiculous--in almost every situation besides recession, immigration is a net boon into the economy, as is having workers who will work for less, because it frees up Americans, who have had more capital invested in them (like, say, the education they got) to go on and do better paying jobs.

    fake edit @ statements that I don't understand the reality of whatever--I live in the 2 of the counties with the highest # of hate crimes against hispanics in New York. This is because Westchester and Suffolk have huge numbers of immigrants that followed the influx of rich people into the areas, thus 'destroying' the wages of unskilled laborers in the area. But a lot of the people who, for instance, used to be day laborers, looked and realized that they knew both Spanish and English pretty well, and started up gardening companies. The people who didn't end up doing better are angry and frustrated--and that makes sense, they don't have a job because of the new competition.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    TechBoyTechBoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    TechBoy wrote: »
    Okay techboy, I can work with that. Let's start simply.

    To you, what are the rewards of illegally entering the US?

    And be advised, no one is coming down on -legal- immigration, though there are some issues there as well. Right now we're talking about illegal aliens. So let's keep it there.

    Well for the illegal immigrant himself the benefits are massive. Again, extreme poverty in Mexico, limited opportunities, etc. etc.

    But I guess if you are asking what's in it for America, and don't think giving immigrants a shot at a better life is a meaningful goal in and of itself, well I would say what America gains is a generation of immigrant children.

    Mom and Dad might not know a lick of english, not really have any worthwhile skills, and be happy with just having a roof over their head, but you can bet their kids growing up here, going through public school, absorbing American culture through the media will want more. And like their parents their relative poverty will drive them to achieve, but unlike their parents they will have the education and skills to be more than just low class workers.

    Yes, I will admit that probably only a minority of illegal immigrant children go off to college and become much better off than their parents, but I would argue that this is a failing of our public school systems, of the difficulty of social mobility and how many factors conspire to make escaping poverty difficult rather than some indication that illegal immigration is terrible for this country.

    The people that come from Mexico are poor, but they won't stay that way if we give them the opportunity to be more.

    And these same statements don't apply to impoverished American children who aren't getting the assistance they need to succeed how?

    It does apply to impoverished American families as well. I think immigrants tend to be more determined to be upwardly mobile, but for most intents and purposes once an illegal immigrant has hopped the border and settled in this country, he becomes much like any other poor American. Thus any measures to provide poor immigrants with opportunities would benefit poor Americans as well.

    What we should be doing is integrating the illegals into society by better funding public education, assisting people in starting small businesses, and in general helping families move up and out of poverty, not wasting resources on witchhunts for illegals or massive increases in border patrol. Doing the former helps all Americans, doing the latter...?

    Also I'm not sure what incentive criminals have for coming into America. I'd imagine America has a much better police system and I'm sure our legal system wouldn't look favorably upon someone who was a illegal on top of being a criminal. If you're referring to the incidents of violence against border residents, I'd imagine that is more related to drug trafficking and the drug related violence going on in within Mexico spilling into our borders. It's bad yes but kind of separate from the issue of illegal immigration.

    TechBoy on
    tf2_sig.png
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    TechBoy wrote: »
    I don't think we're encouraging illegal immigration so much as permitting it.

    I don't know enough to say whether completely Open-Borders would be good or bad. Maybe a large sudden influx of low-skill immigrants will cause more harm than good, maybe it won't. I dunno.

    But I am in favor of amnesty for the illegals already here, and for upping legal immigration.

    EDIT: And we permit illegal immigration because, honestly, the cost of enforcing it probably isn't worth whatever benefit people think we get from enforcing it.

    Well techboy, all your arguments mainly fly in the face of those who immigrate here legally. You can't see how having low cost workers who will work at any price and sends back the majority of the money to Mexico will hurt someone who lives in this country and has to feed his family here?

    And we permit the problem in the SW because of the need of businesses to exploit brown labor on the Republican side, and the desire of the Democrats to pander to the Hispanic lobby. I enforce immigration law, and I can tell you the benefit is immeasurable.

    I know people like to believe that every person who comes north is looking for a better life, but let me tell you, there are just as many who are trying to escape justice in Mexico. Plenty who are looking to come up here and commit crimes as well. There is no magic wand that lets us determing who is going to be a productive member of society and who is going to end up stalking and raping a bunch of 14 year old girls. So we keep them all out, because its the right thing to do.

    And Ethan, you "counties in NY" don't really mesh with what I'm getting at about living on the SW border. You don't have home invasions by Mexican gangs, kidnapping rings, people getting shot and killed on the border, illegal aliens breaking into your house at night when they're crossing, throwing themselves into traffic so they can hijack a vehicle, trying to steal your car so they can drive it north, and on and on.

    All these are very real possibilities by anyone who lives near the border.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    TechBoy wrote: »
    And we permit illegal immigration because, honestly, the cost of enforcing it probably isn't worth whatever benefit people think we get from enforcing it.

    That's pretty much it. Allowing unlimited immigration would be bad, and cracking down heavily on illegal immigration would be bad, so we half-ass our enforcement.

    I would like this country to actually have a sane immigration policy at some point, though.

    jothki on
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, I'm kind of on the fence about US immigration policies. On the one hand, having actively tried to immigrate to other countries, it's really damned difficult if you aren't applying as a student in the first place, or if you aren't in a profession that is drastically needed worldwide like a doctor or nurse or engineer or programmer. So, other countries are only taking the best of the best, why not the US as well, right?

    On the other hand, a few years ago I tried to sponsor my mother to get a green card here (I was born here to parents on a student+spouse visa). After 4+ years of being asked for additional forms to fill out, each with additional processing fees in the hundreds of dollars each, we finally gave up at the point that the gov't insisted my mother provide police records for every city she'd lived in past the age of 16.

    That sounds pretty innocuous, but my mom is like, 67 years old and has lived in dozens of places in a handful of countries since she was 16. She doesn't even know anyone in her native country anymore, in which she has not lived in nearly 40 years. So, she can't get a police report, so, we abandoned the whole case. Only took a thousand or so to get hung up there, I guess.

    I can't help but find the flaming hoop process a tiny tad excessive, so I can only imagine what happens if you're actually trying to get here on your own merits and you don't have forever and a day, and $texas.

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Sorry if my posts are long, I'm responding to a lot of people.
    Yar, the problem is your argument works from a perfect world scenario, combined with arguing over semantics (your entire issue with the word "illegal alien", which is a perfectly fine legal term) and disguised appeals to emotions while making not so hidden allegations as to the alleged racism and small mindedness of anyone who sees things differently than you.
    I'm pretty sure, after two explanations, you are still clueless as to my point about the word "illegal." I will try to make it even simpler - do you understand that if something isn't against the law, then the word "illegal" doesn't apply anymore? Do you understand that "open borders" means that coming across the border would no longer be against the law? So, instead of vague descriptions about "the problem" and "my argument," would you like one more chance to actually explain exactly how you think that open borders could possibly lead to more illegal immigrants, as you claimed earlier?

    If the borders were open, they wouldn't be illegal. That's my point. You can't keep saying that the problem is that they are illegal, because then the solution would simply be open borders. No more illegals. Your concern must be something else. Beyond that, I am merely guessing at what it might be, what might prompt you to continue to describe them as "illegal' even when that word doesn't apply at all (like in the case of open borders). It suggests that when you say "illegal" you are thinking something else. I'm not appealing to any emotions or racism here, it's certainly possible that it could be something more sensible. I'm just trying to move this along by finding out what it is.
    There are sites that argue the pros and cons of America's immigration problem, with plenty of statistics. That's what we're arguing here with, facts. Not with how you think things should be in your perfect world.
    Cute. Yes, your argument has been so full of facts. Can you cite me the facts and statistics about how open borders would just lead to more illegal immigrants? Regardless, you can't jump straight to facts and statistics if your concern isn't even clear yet. Is economic? Tax revenues? Crime? We can then actually talk about facts and statistics that support various angles. So far it seems your main concern is that they are "illegal." That makes no sense.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Follow me here- illegal immigrants tend to be poorer than Americans, on the whole.
    Sure. So your problem is with poor and uneducated people, not immigrants in particular.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Basically, the employers of illegal immigrants get the benefit of cheaper wages, while passing on a whole bunch of costs to the rest of us.
    So your problem is with employers who don't obey minimum wage laws. I'm not a big fan of minwage, but I still can sympathize here. Make them pay those immigrants at least minimum wage.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Go on if you like, but you're just spouting nonsense. No one's "being" is illegal. We're referring to their immigration status. But you knew that.
    Yes, their "status" is illegal. That really isn't any different. How does one's "status" (or being) make them a criminal?
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Simply put, most of your questions are completely irrelevant. Every country has an absolute right to decide whether or not to allow immigrants into their country. Illegal immigrants have broken our laws, and they should be deported. If we change that law, fine. But your philosophical musings about whether a person's "being" can be illegal are best left to dorm room political discussion sessions.
    This isn't an argument. All you are saying is "that's just how it is and I don't want to hear no different." You are effectively admitting that you can't justify your stance.
    Dman wrote: »
    You're left with a huge population of people living way below minimum wage, both locals and immigrants.

    That doesn't sound like an improvement on the status quo in my country to me.
    Well, I haven't proposed anything. But the unskilled poor of the world would not come here unless their lives were the better for it. That's all I'm really getting at. Call it table pounding or heart strings or whatever, but at the end of the day you are forced to at least accept the reasoning here - that the benefits to someone coming here are not as important as the possible increased difficulties it would create for us. Even if, as the statistical analysis showed, the benefits to them are 25 - 55 times greater than the potential difficulties created for us. That still doesn't matter. We were born here, they weren't. We get the benefits, and we will spend any reasonble effort we can to force them from enjoying the same. Because of our birthright.

    And keep in mind some studies show that their net effect on us all is positive, despite the negative effect on our unskilled poor.
    Dman wrote: »
    I don't see any difference between that and the ability to decide who is allowed into your home.
    Huge difference. The government doesn't own the land within it's borders.
    Not really. It's sophistry. Unregistered, unchecked, excess immigration is illegal for a damn good reason, and changing the law to make it legal wouldn't help. If we removed the requirement of consent from sex, there wouldn't be any more "rapes" but that wouldn't stop having sexual relations at knifepoint from being a bad thing.
    OMG, are you really not capable of this simple logic? If your problem is their legal status, making them legal would absolutely help! It would completely solve the problem! My point is that obviously them being illegal is not what makes them a problem, so stop saying that's the problem and talk about what you believe the problem actually is. How is this sophistry or semantics? It's extremely simple and straightforward reason.
    Of course, this must be because Americans simply won't do these jobs and not because the glut of cheap (and often illegal) labor has driven wages to the point where people can do better for themselves by staying unemployed.
    You should think for a while about what you just wrote. Can you explain to me the difference between "simply won't do this job" and "I can do better for myself staying unemployed"? Your sarcasm seems to imply there is some obvious contrast between the two, whereas I'm pretty sure they are one in the same and a great example of what we're talking about.
    Where does Yar live? I notice geography makes up a pretty big part of how you view the entire immigration issue in the States.
    Ok, is this one of those examples of how you use "facts" whereas I'm just pounding the table and calling people racists? But anyway, my state is in the top ten for illegal immigrants, if that means anything. Here's another stat for you, back to the racist thing: for non-black people in the States, the percentage of black people living in your state is also a huge indicator of how likely it is that you're a racist. So I have no doubt that proximity to immigration will affect the stance on it. That doesn't necessarily prove what you think it does.
    And be advised, no one is coming down on -legal- immigration, though there are some issues there as well. Right now we're talking about illegal aliens. So let's keep it there.
    If that's where we're keeping it: make all immigration legal. There, problem completely solved. Please try to come up with an answer to this so we can move on. Remember, you said we're only talking about illegal immigration. I just proposed a solution that would solve it 100% and keep it solved forever.

    Yar on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar is the perfect example of why a little knowledge and a complete lack of critical thinking is a dangerous thing.

    adytum on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Yar is the perfect example of why a little knowledge and a complete lack of critical thinking is a dangerous thing.
    Care to explain?

    Yar on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    Yar is the perfect example of why a little knowledge and a complete lack of critical thinking is a dangerous thing.
    Care to explain?

    Because your posts cherry picking nuances and arguing over things that are unimportant to the discussion at hand while making references to how everyone who thinks other than you is a small minded simpleton without referencing a single fact other than how you would feel.

    You've already made it clear you don't believe in the idea of a nation having a right to borders or to control who comes in and who doesn't. Like I said before, your posts are just a way of shouting "Look at me! Look at me!".

    Seriously, go back to your dorm room.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Because your posts cherry picking nuances and arguing over things that are unimportant to the discussion at hand while making references to how everyone who thinks other than you is a small minded simpleton without referencing a single fact other than how you would feel.

    You've already made it clear you don't believe in the idea of a nation having a right to borders or to control who comes in and who doesn't. Like I said before, your posts are just a way of shouting "Look at me! Look at me!".

    Seriously, go back to your dorm room.
    If you'd like to respond to something I've said, go ahead. Otherwise, your statements are basically equivalent to admitting that you are wrong. Your accusations of me just "fist-pounding" become more and more ironic after posts like the one you just made above.

    What have I cherry-picked? What nuances? So, is their status as illegal now an unimportant nuance? Did you not also just say that it was the most important factor to the discussion? Which is it? I can't follow.

    I really don't think I've claimed what you say I have, and I know that you trying to summarize my beliefs for me isn't really an argument at all.

    Yar on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Because your posts cherry picking nuances and arguing over things that are unimportant to the discussion at hand while making references to how everyone who thinks other than you is a small minded simpleton without referencing a single fact other than how you would feel.

    You've already made it clear you don't believe in the idea of a nation having a right to borders or to control who comes in and who doesn't. Like I said before, your posts are just a way of shouting "Look at me! Look at me!".

    Seriously, go back to your dorm room.
    If you'd like to respond to something I've said, go ahead. Otherwise, your statements are basically equivalent to admitting that you are wrong. Your accusations of me just "fist-pounding" become more and more ironic after posts like the one you just made above.

    What have I cherry-picked? What nuances? So, is their status as illegal now an unimportant nuance? Did you not also just say that it was the most important factor to the discussion? Which is it? I can't follow.

    So call it a win for you if you want, I'm not responding back to you in this thread.
    I really don't think I've claimed what you say I have, and I know that you trying to summarize my beliefs for me isn't really an argument at all.

    You're the one who threw the big fit about the idea that calling them "illegal" was wrong. If you want, you can go look at it back on page 3 or 4 if you forgot about it already.

    I don't want to debate with you because your posts are pretty much big quote trees where nothing gets resolved except you acting like a sophist and arguing over semantics whenever someone tries to nail you down on a point.

    I don't want to waste my time on that with you, and apparently I'm not the only one who feels that way. Its how you post in a thread, and I want no part of your attention whoring.

    So call if a win for you if you want, I'm not responding to your posts in this thread anymore.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    TechBoyTechBoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Well techboy, all your arguments mainly fly in the face of those who immigrate here legally. You can't see how having low cost workers who will work at any price and sends back the majority of the money to Mexico will hurt someone who lives in this country and has to feed his family here?

    Honestly, I don't. Isn't lower cost labor better for all because then we get goods and services cheaper? Isn't that why we offshore all our manufacturing to China?

    I acknowledge that there are Americans who do lose their jobs due to undercutting by Mexican workers, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that these people can't find work in some other occupation or that their life's prospects are somehow irrevocably damaged. I mean job loss happens all the time due to plenty of reasons that aren't immigration related, to expect some kind of special rule for job loss due to immigration is kind of silly.

    I know people like to believe that every person who comes north is looking for a better life, but let me tell you, there are just as many who are trying to escape justice in Mexico. Plenty who are looking to come up here and commit crimes as well. There is no magic wand that lets us determing who is going to be a productive member of society and who is going to end up stalking and raping a bunch of 14 year old girls. So we keep them all out, because its the right thing to do.

    And Ethan, you "counties in NY" don't really mesh with what I'm getting at about living on the SW border. You don't have home invasions by Mexican gangs, kidnapping rings, people getting shot and killed on the border, illegal aliens breaking into your house at night when they're crossing, throwing themselves into traffic so they can hijack a vehicle, trying to steal your car so they can drive it north, and on and on.

    All these are very real possibilities by anyone who lives near the border.

    All of these are bad things and it sounds tough living where you live, but it seems like your situation is akin to living in a bad neighborhood. Is the economic and property damage and danger really so bad that we should be sending military to guard our borders? And would rounding up illegals in your area and shipping them back really do anything to improve the situation?

    TechBoy on
    tf2_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.