Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

1282931333436

Posts

  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Fear mongering from both sides really. "Mark of the Beast" talk is some of it (no, I am not making that up), but there are politicians getting a lot of mileage arguing that somehow it's "unamerican" and what not to have a national ID.

    Of course, you have the other side going off about E-Verify and Secure Communities "putting fear into the immigrant community", and dreadlocked college kids screaming about "The NAZIS asked for papers, maaan!" so the noise to signal ratio is through the roof in general.

    Oh, I mean intelligent harblegarble. I guess there isn't any.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    You haven't offered any proof. You claim that those facts are related, but have yet to back up that claim. I'm willing to consider it, but so far your arguments have been shitty.

    As opposed to your arguments, which are...not present.

    I've presented an argument. You've refused to accept it as an argument, or even to offer proof to the contrary, which makes my original point in regards to you to begin with.
    So in your world "Nevada has lots of illegal immigrants and high unemployment therefore illegal immigration causes unemployment" is a valid argument? Also, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made the claim, and you need to back it up. Or you can keep yammering about how unfair I am refusing to accept everything you say as gospel truth, either way.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    You haven't offered any proof. You claim that those facts are related, but have yet to back up that claim. I'm willing to consider it, but so far your arguments have been shitty.

    As opposed to your arguments, which are...not present.

    I've presented an argument. You've refused to accept it as an argument, or even to offer proof to the contrary, which makes my original point in regards to you to begin with.
    So in your world "Nevada has lots of illegal immigrants and high unemployment therefore illegal immigration causes unemployment" is a valid argument? Also, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made the claim, and you need to back it up. Or you can keep yammering about how unfair I am refusing to accept everything you say as gospel truth, either way.


    No, I said it was part of the problem, YOU are the one assuming I said it was the whole problem, point blank, ship out all the illegals and things would be fine. Obviously, Nevada's economic base isn't the best, especially in a downturn, but having the massive about of illegal aliens there isn't helping things, either.

    Maybe you should stop straw manning and make an argument instead of trying to split hairs. Have you added anything to this thread except a bunch of noise?

    For the record, I said there was a connection and posted links to the fact. You have a rebuttal? Prove your side. All you're doing now is crossing your arms with your eyes closed saying "You haven't proven anything" for the last three posts. I'll respond to you when you have something other than "NUH UH". I fully expect you to think of this as a "victory" or whatever. You're welcome to it.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Basically, all this plan asks for is thorough tracking (photo ID, fingerprinting, SSN) for anyone wishing to work here and mandatory background checks. I don't see why both of those couldn't be thrown under the Fed Govt's umbrella.

    Because you'd have to photo ID everyone for this to work, not just immigrants. A citizen not having ID isn't a crime, but if you make not having ID a crime for immigrants, then you've just made citizens, particularly of the brown variety, have to bear ID anyway. Compulsory carrying of an identity card everywhere you go on penalty of fine or imprisonment, etc.

    The US must be willing to practice considerably more state surveillance than it does today - unique ID numbers for everyone, tracking every individual's employment and plnoace of work and home, etc. This could be coordinated with the Internal Revenue Service and so on.

    This isn't necessarily a problem; I think America would get on just fine if it did enact and enforce national ID document programs. But you have your fellow Americans to convince, not me.

    I'm on board with all of this. I've never understood the harblegarble over the national ID. You have to have a SSN to get a job, and almost everyone has a State ID or driver's license, so what's the big deal?

    We had an entire thread on why it's a big deal. You really should read it sometime. Suffice it to say that the fact that you think that is a function of your unobserved privilege.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I presume this was the thread.

    Many other countries seem to get on just fine with ID cards.

    Really the problem seems to be in how the US government is predicted to actually execute the idea; there is no particular need to make ID hard or expensive to get. Here are other things which presently generate privilege: requiring a driver's license to drive, requiring a gun license to own a weapon, requiring state-issued certification for assorted semiskilled jobs.

    Of course, there are other objections to compulsory ID, but privilege seems to be an odd one to invoke.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    You haven't offered any proof. You claim that those facts are related, but have yet to back up that claim. I'm willing to consider it, but so far your arguments have been shitty.

    As opposed to your arguments, which are...not present.

    I've presented an argument. You've refused to accept it as an argument, or even to offer proof to the contrary, which makes my original point in regards to you to begin with.
    So in your world "Nevada has lots of illegal immigrants and high unemployment therefore illegal immigration causes unemployment" is a valid argument? Also, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made the claim, and you need to back it up. Or you can keep yammering about how unfair I am refusing to accept everything you say as gospel truth, either way.


    No, I said it was part of the problem, YOU are the one assuming I said it was the whole problem, point blank, ship out all the illegals and things would be fine. Obviously, Nevada's economic base isn't the best, especially in a downturn, but having the massive about of illegal aliens there isn't helping things, either.
    Prove it.
    Maybe you should stop straw manning and make an argument instead of trying to split hairs. Have you added anything to this thread except a bunch of noise?

    For the record, I said there was a connection and posted links to the fact. You have a rebuttal? Prove your side. All you're doing now is crossing your arms with your eyes closed saying "You haven't proven anything" for the last three posts. I'll respond to you when you have something other than "NUH UH". I fully expect you to think of this as a "victory" or whatever. You're welcome to it.

    No you didn't. You linked to an article that purported to show that immigrants hurt native born high school dropouts but was conducted below the standards you see in high school statistics and economics courses. It said nothing about the health of the economy as a whole, so, if you saw something about that topic in the study, you should lay off the mushrooms.

    Also, I love that you are still insisting that we prove the negative and that anything that shows your arguments are bunk is "'nuh uh.'" It's almost as hilarious as how you keep saying we're "denying the facts" that you totally fail to bring up or even justify. You really are the golden goose of fallacy examples, and that's a fact.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Basically, all this plan asks for is thorough tracking (photo ID, fingerprinting, SSN) for anyone wishing to work here and mandatory background checks. I don't see why both of those couldn't be thrown under the Fed Govt's umbrella.

    Because you'd have to photo ID everyone for this to work, not just immigrants. A citizen not having ID isn't a crime, but if you make not having ID a crime for immigrants, then you've just made citizens, particularly of the brown variety, have to bear ID anyway. Compulsory carrying of an identity card everywhere you go on penalty of fine or imprisonment, etc.

    The US must be willing to practice considerably more state surveillance than it does today - unique ID numbers for everyone, tracking every individual's employment and plnoace of work and home, etc. This could be coordinated with the Internal Revenue Service and so on.

    This isn't necessarily a problem; I think America would get on just fine if it did enact and enforce national ID document programs. But you have your fellow Americans to convince, not me.

    I'm on board with all of this. I've never understood the harblegarble over the national ID. You have to have a SSN to get a job, and almost everyone has a State ID or driver's license, so what's the big deal?

    We had an entire thread on why it's a big deal. You really should read it sometime. Suffice it to say that the fact that you think that is a function of your unobserved privilege.

    The biggest problem is that the supreme court has already ruled that any enforcement of ID requirements would violate the fourth amendment.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I presume this was the thread.

    Many other countries seem to get on just fine with ID cards.

    Really the problem seems to be in how the US government is predicted to actually execute the idea; there is no particular need to make ID hard or expensive to get. Here are other things which presently generate privilege: requiring a driver's license to drive, requiring a gun license to own a weapon, requiring state-issued certification for assorted semiskilled jobs.

    Of course, there are other objections to compulsory ID, but privilege seems to be an odd one to invoke.

    AH sees a possible "racism" angle and froths at the mouth, so that's why he's invoking it.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I presume this was the thread.

    Many other countries seem to get on just fine with ID cards.

    Really the problem seems to be in how the US government is predicted to actually execute the idea; there is no particular need to make ID hard or expensive to get. Here are other things which presently generate privilege: requiring a driver's license to drive, requiring a gun license to own a weapon, requiring state-issued certification for assorted semiskilled jobs.

    Of course, there are other objections to compulsory ID, but privilege seems to be an odd one to invoke.

    AH sees a possible "racism" angle and froths at the mouth, so that's why he's invoking it.

    Ah, so you're going back to the inexplicable racism denial cross that you loved having yourself on in the last thread.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    AH sees a possible "racism" angle and froths at the mouth, so that's why he's invoking it.

    There's no need for that. I think AH is arguing in bad form, but there's no reason not to think he's doing so in good faith.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    It seems to me that if you restrict welfare that recent immigrants qualify for, you solve all the problems you bring up. That strikes me as both politically and legislatively feasible.

    Except that's not how the game is played. Right now you have forces at work trying to give illegal aliens the right to apply for scholarships and grants and other benefits through the DREAM Act. So your argument that it is "politically and legislatively feasible" to cut benefits to immigrants falls flat on its face.

    Also, immigrants are supposed to be able to prove they won't become a public charge, which for some reason applying for benefits such as welfare and the like doesn't fall under.

    The DREAM act has some relatively strict standards. I'm not really concerned about it. It's essentially designed to prevent people who were brought to America illegally as children from being thrown somewhere else where they'll have less than no chance of surviving. That's not exactly something that brings comprehensive immigration reform to its knees.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I understand that this is addressed to Captain Carrot, but it doesn't really address my issues with what you posted which were very specific. You noted a correlation, but did not establish causation. There is an alternative story that works just fine though. As Scalfin noted, the unemployment rate could have to do with the fact that the state is a place that people moved to because of an economic bubble that popped, that doesn't have a lot of local opportunities for things that aren't related to the entertainment industry, which is hurting very badly. Now, this could be true IN ADDITION to your hypothesis of immigrants staying there and killing the job market, but unless I missed something you haven't posted anything to show that this is the case.

    Like I told Captain Carrot, there's no amount of proof that is going to satisfy you short of me getting on my big boy pants, driving to Nevada, and running my own independent study. Which is a bit beyond my means. I've led you to the water, if you don't want to drink, fine by me.

    Look, I've posted exactly why your bit wasn't actually addressing anything. It's a cliché that correlation and causation aren't necessarily the same, I know, but it's also a truism. It's not a matter of "there's no amount of proof" given this. You haven't actually shown proof, you've shown a fallacy and called it truth. I guess I'm not going to debate you, you've apparently given up on me for some reason--I can only conclude that you're unable to present relevant data, as none exists to support your point--and it saddens me to say that I must do the same for you.

    You don't have a case, at least according to what you've posted. You have strong convictions, but this means nothing WRT what is actually occurring, it just says a lot about where you're coming from.

    I'm done talking to you until you can get beyond attacking me, and start posting substantive material. Sorry.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Why exactly should we devote government resources to people we should be deporting? I am sorry your parents broke the law coming here, and you are a bystander to their wrong doing, but that does not magically gift you with the legal right to be here.

    I am sorry that the government safety nets designed for citizens allowed people who should not be receiving any form of government assistance to receive a free education, and I am sorry they have no ability to function in their home country. They should still be deported.

    Moreover this is the exact kind of hardship we should be encouraging to discourage illegal immigration in the first place. There should not be a reward if you manage to avoid getting caught breaking out laws for a certain length of time.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Why exactly should we devote government resources to people we should be deporting? I am sorry your parents broke the law coming here, and you are a bystander to their wrong doing, but that does not magically gift you with the legal right to be here.

    I am sorry that the government safety nets designed for citizens allowed people who should not be receiving any form of government assistance to receive a free education, and I am sorry they have no ability to function in their home country. They should still be deported.

    Moreover this is the exact kind of hardship we should be encouraging to discourage illegal immigration in the first place. There should not be a reward if you manage to avoid getting caught breaking out laws for a certain length of time.

    I don't think we should be deporting them. I think that current immigration regulations are unjust and racist, and ultimately do a lot more harm than good, both to Americans and immigrants (and people who would immigrate, but cannot).

    Your position seems to go beyond caring for the well-being of Americans and into something else. I don't understand where you are coming from here.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    You have to understand that in order to directly combat illegal immigration we need to crack down on any and all benefits to come here illegally. Any incentive to illegally violate our borders should be stamped down on as hard as possible.

    If illegal immigrants in no way qualify for any form of government assistance, their illegal (ie not born here) children are subject to deportation along with them, their ability to find jobs is severely hampered due to laws and enforcement upon employers then people stop coming.

    We cannot deport the entirety of the current illegal immigrant population in the US. What we can do however is make conditions so difficult they self deport.

    The sad truth is that what the majority of illegal immigrants offer the American job market is their ability to exploited, and their willingness to be party to the violation of our labor laws. Neither of these is truly good things.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Assuming, of costs, that the costs of such rigorous enforcement - especially to people who look like potential immigrants, or can be harassed on the basis of such - are actually greater than the costs of such illegal immigration.

    If you are really concerned about exploitation, then we should be allowing illegal immigrants to gain from resisting exploitation, not giving their employers even more ammunition to terrify them into silence.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    You have to understand that in order to directly combat illegal immigration we need to crack down on any and all benefits to come here illegally. Any incentive to illegally violate our borders should be stamped down on as hard as possible.

    If illegal immigrants in no way qualify for any form of government assistance, their illegal (ie not born here) children are subject to deportation along with them, their ability to find jobs is severely hampered due to laws and enforcement upon employers then people stop coming.

    We cannot deport the entirety of the current illegal immigrant population in the US. What we can do however is make conditions so difficult they self deport.

    The sad truth is that what the majority of illegal immigrants offer the American job market is their ability to exploited, and their willingness to be party to the violation of our labor laws. Neither of these is truly good things.

    You seem to keep hammering this idea that if we just make America horrible enough for these people, they will stop coming. There is nothing you could realistically propose that would make America an unattractive alternative to a country rife with corruption, drug violence, and soul-crushing poverty. Working with Mexican authorities to bring their country's political and economic stability closer to ours would help decrease that gap, but it's just silly to think that we can even begin to bring life in America down to their level.

    rndmhero on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    What about.... <drum roll> THE DEPORTAPULT!, and new to avoid breaking up families, the FAMILY SIZE DEPORTAPULT!

    Ok all semi kidding aside, as I would love for the federal government to pay me to deport people via catapult, if they cannot find jobs or qualify for government assistance then really they either starve to death or go somewhere they can. Frankly it is why the Arizona law is the way to go, because simply by making things more hostile to illegal immigrants they are now dealing with less of them. Of course Nevada, California, and New Mexico now deal with more of the problems that come from illegal immigration.

    Honestly if nothing else it is like getting your house sprayed for bugs, the bugs just run to your neighbors homes who freak out and call an exterminator. Pretty soon everyone is either paying for bug spray, or buried in roaches.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    You're missing the point, which is: do you really think we can make things worse by policy than crime and poverty and corruption can outside the US?

    As an aside here, your choice of language is really creepy at times.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    You're missing the point, which is: do you really think we can make things worse by policy than crime and poverty and corruption can outside the US?

    As an aside here, your choice of language is really ridiculously offensive at times.

    rndmhero on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I'm on board with all of this. I've never understood the harblegarble over the national ID. You have to have a SSN to get a job, and almost everyone has a State ID or driver's license, so what's the big deal?

    nazi.bmp

    The 'harblegarble' is mostly over echoes of the shameful, thoroughly discredited, toxic policies in fascist Italy & Germany in the 30s, where the ID systems imposed were employed to target & ostracize state's enemies. I mean, the current administration's aim with the proposed identification system isn't just to build some benign database, is it? It's to assist in sniffing out and expelling members of your society (mostly refugees from Mexico) you've deemed thilthy & harmful.
    Many other countries seem to get on just fine with ID cards.

    Yeah, wonderful list of countries to emulate. Fucking Bosnia, Cuba, Chile, Argentina, Germany, Egypt, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Serbia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan... don't you want to be just like those nations?

    (They don't 'get along just fine', by the way)

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I wasn't aware that modern Germany was an example of bad policy now. Nor, you know, Hong Kong.

    But this may be moving off-topic.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that modern Germany was an example of bad policy now. Nor, you know, Hong Kong.

    But this may be moving off-topic.

    You weren't aware that Markel's 'Christian Social Union' which engages in heavy-handed media censorship, has married the state to one particular flavor of superstition and which is beginning to walk hand in hand with the shameful government in Warsaw (who's former head was mercifully killed by his own stupidity in an airplane wreck) is an example of terrible policy?

    You weren't aware that mainland China, and all of the political problems that come with it, has taken control over Hong Kong's affairs?

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    You're missing the point, which is: do you really think we can make things worse by policy than crime and poverty and corruption can outside the US?

    As an aside here, your choice of language is really creepy at times.

    Yes, yes I can. If you increase the ability for police officers in the course of their duty to identify, detain, and turn over for deportation illegal immigrants while simultaneously increasing both penalties and enforcement on employers of illegal immigration you will see a marked drop in illegal immigration.

    Moreover better border security to prevent people from crossing in the first place, plus reforms to the American welfare system such as instead of offering welfare to children of illegal immigrants you deport the parents with the option of either taking their child with them, or abandoning them to our Social Services system.

    It is very possible to utilize policy to make illegal immigration a worse option. Moreover we could target industries we wanted to subsidize through the use of work visas. The problem is that first we need to close our borders before we can increase the amount of people we legally let in. Otherwise we only exacerbate our problems. Moreover we need to be careful in exactly how we utilize an increase in visas to certain industries to avoid the problems we are currently having in the technology industry. IE being exploited because if you refuse to work illegal hours, without pay, or in illegal conditions we will simply yank your visa and deport you.

    As to the aside, your feelings are not my concern. Tend to your own emotional state, I have no more control over your feelings than you allow me. You will begin feeling joy in 3...2...

    Detharin on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Of course, you have the other side going off about E-Verify and Secure Communities "putting fear into the immigrant community", and dreadlocked college kids screaming about "The NAZIS asked for papers, maaan!" so the noise to signal ratio is through the roof in general.

    And here's an intelligent piece of commentary.

    The German Worker's Party did ask for your papers, and if you handed the Brown Shirts (or later, the SS) the 'wrong' set on the wrong day, God help you. Do you really need a recounting of the event that lead to the Night of the Broken Glass?

    Now, America isn't about to start penning people up in death camps, but don't think that the rest of the world doesn't hear when you complain about how, "All these damn Mexicans, it's their fault, we need to do something about them!"

    It's a familiar song, and shoving refugees back to the cartels in Mexico is just the coward's way of murdering them. Why go to the trouble of organizing your own death squads when your neighbor to the south already has them, right?

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that modern Germany was an example of bad policy now. Nor, you know, Hong Kong.

    But this may be moving off-topic.

    You weren't aware that Markel's 'Christian Social Union' which engages in heavy-handed media censorship, has married the state to one particular flavor of superstition and which is beginning to walk hand in hand with the shameful government in Warsaw (who's former head was mercifully killed by his own stupidity in an airplane wreck) is an example of terrible policy?

    You weren't aware that mainland China, and all of the political problems that come with it, has taken control over Hong Kong's affairs?

    This is guilt-by-association. HK is run with an extremely light touch, and the issues you point out WRT Germany have nothing to do with problems related to national IDs. You're saying that China is bad, therefore national IDs are bad. You're saying Germany is bad (somehow) therefore national IDs are bad. Belgium also has a national ID, as does France. How are these countries bad?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yes, yes I can. If you increase the ability for police officers in the course of their duty to identify, detain, and turn over for deportation illegal immigrants while simultaneously increasing both penalties and enforcement on employers of illegal immigration you will see a marked drop in illegal immigration.

    No, you won't. You don't understand why the refugees are fleeing.

    If you have a choice between being hunted down and killed by fanatics in Nuevo Laredo, and probably burned alive when they find you, you're probably going to try and make a run for it - regardless of the legal trouble you might face in the U.S.

    I mean, unless you're suggesting that America should, in fact, just institutionalize the murdering of all illegal immigrants by gasoline & fire so that going to America is no better than staying in Mexico?

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We, as a country, lack the political will to enact policies that will fix Mexico's problems. Nor are we responsible for fixing Mexico's problems.

    Our laws prevent us from, as you put it, going to the trouble of organizing our own death squads. Therefore by those laws we shove the refugees back to the Cartels to be killed. This is not our concern, or our problem.

    Our problems created by those same refugees are those we need to deal with. If we refuse to deal with them we are creating more problems for our own underclass, predominately our own minorities.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    No, you won't. You don't understand why the refugees are fleeing.

    If you have a choice between being hunted down and killed by fanatics in Nuevo Laredo, and probably burned alive when they find you, you're probably going to try and make a run for it - regardless of the legal trouble you might face in the U.S.

    I mean, unless you're suggesting that America should, in fact, just institutionalize the murdering of all illegal immigrants by gasoline & fire so that going to America is no better than staying in Mexico?

    We don't have to. Deporting them will tend to itself. Once you are here if you cannot find work, and no one will offer assistance you either die, turn to crime and enter our lovely penal system where we return you to Mexico, or you return to Mexico and you die.

    When you come here wishing to be exploitable disposable labor, you often end up getting disposed off. Although often this means burdening out Emergency rooms later in life for the treatment of illnesses gained due to previously mentioned illegal working conditions.

    As has already been mentioned the sad truth is that the more people die in the crossing the better off both Mexico and the US are.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    This is guilt-by-association. HK is run with an extremely light touch, and the issues you point out WRT Germany have nothing to do with problems related to national IDs. You're saying that China is bad, therefore national IDs are bad. You're saying Germany is bad (somehow) therefore national IDs are bad. Belgium also has a national ID, as does France. How are these countries bad?

    I'm not saying national IDs are bad - I'm pointing out why they're looked at with a lot of scorn by some people (myself included) and I thought that many of the countries listed by Ronya as apparent shining examples of how other nations that 'run themselves just fine' were terrible. Yes, some are fine - but some are also places where the national ID system is still used as a means to put the state's boot on the throat of the public (Iran is perhaps the best example).

    Imposing a national ID system in order to target Mexican refugees will lead to disastrous, shameful miscarriages of justice.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We, as a country, lack the political will to enact policies that will fix Mexico's problems. Nor are we responsible for fixing Mexico's problems.

    Yes, you are - because you've created those problems. You sold the cartels their guns, and you gave them all of their money through your prohibition laws.
    Our laws prevent us from, as you put it, going to the trouble of organizing our own death squads. Therefore by those laws we shove the refugees back to the Cartels to be killed. This is not our concern, or our problem.

    Our problems created by those same refugees are those we need to deal with. If we refuse to deal with them we are creating more problems for our own underclass, predominately our own minorities.

    You're a fucking psychopath.

    (EDIT: And likely a neo-fascist)

    We're done talking.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We sold the cartels the guns? Back it up a step there. The US government sold those cartels those guns. The guns we are seizing are the same ones we sold the Mexican military. This pipedream of the gun show loophole funneling 16k machine guns, functional grenades, rocket launchers, and other military hardware is just a bullshit anti-gun media spin.

    You want to know where the guns are coming from, look directly at the us government. Unless you think someone is spending 16000 dollars on a m-16. Going with a back ground check, registering it with the ATF, and spending about 6 months one ONE GUN if they can find someone to sell it just to smuggle it south of the border.

    You want a source of your problems start pointing fingers at the US government, the same US government ignoring the problems caused by illegal immigrant refugees. Perhaps if we stopped selling weapons to Mexico's military you might see less weapons in the hands of the cartels.

    EDIT News flash, Concern trolling doesn't work if the person does not give a damn. Mexican citizens are not my problem. Nor are they a concern of the American people, which is why we exploit the living shit out of them.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    What you need to understand is that you have a bias, as does legionofone. You admit your position on an issue causes problems for certain people. When you say X suffer so Y benefit, but its ok economically because Y gets more benefit you are distancing yourself from the actual people involved. For the people living in the American SouthWest the problems of immigration are very real, very present, and depending on what you do, or where you are in life how much they directly effect them.

    When you make the argument that the problems are "not that bad" from a position far removed from the problem, and then dismiss the every day realities that a group of people are suffering under because "economics says this is a good thing" of course he is going to have a problem with it.

    Your position directly hurts a certain percentage of Americans, and directly leads to very real problems in their every day life. Some of us are directly, or indirectly affected by the "not that bad" problems that come from the way illegal immigration is currently being handled on the state and federal level.

    Your problem with LegionOfOne is that you are arguing what should be done from an academic standpoint, he is arguing from a practical one. Your are divided by your positions, and life experiences. It is much easier to say "Fuck group X herd them all on a bus and drive it off a cliff" when you are not the one having to do the herding, or the bus driving. Just like it is hard to say "Fuck group Y, let group X prosper" when you, your family, your friends, or the people you identify with are group Y.

    My position is that many problems that are blamed on immigration are not actually caused by immigration, and the ones that can legitimately be blamed on immigration can mitigated in ways that are more effective than restricting immigration.

    I read phrases like "every day realities" as "anecdotal problems that are mis-attributed to immigration". It seems like a way to smuggle something incorrect into the conversation by calling it "reality" or "common sense". A few lines later, you say "directly leads to very real problems...", and aside from the effect on lower income people (which I freely admit) a lot of what has been said, about crime, about unemployment, is simply contradicted by the data. These "very real problems" are anything but real.

    Finally, I don't understand this "academic/practical" dichotomy that you bring up. That seems like an attack on scholarship. Why should I not read this as an appeal to truthiness?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    This is guilt-by-association. HK is run with an extremely light touch, and the issues you point out WRT Germany have nothing to do with problems related to national IDs. You're saying that China is bad, therefore national IDs are bad. You're saying Germany is bad (somehow) therefore national IDs are bad. Belgium also has a national ID, as does France. How are these countries bad?

    I'm not saying national IDs are bad - I'm pointing out why they're looked at with a lot of scorn by some people (myself included) and I thought that many of the countries listed by Ronya as apparent shining examples of how other nations that 'run themselves just fine' were terrible. Yes, some are fine - but some are also places where the national ID system is still used as a means to put the state's boot on the throat of the public (Iran is perhaps the best example).

    Imposing a national ID system in order to target Mexican refugees will lead to disastrous, shameful miscarriages of justice.

    The argument is to implement a national ID as a component of a policy to allow for freer migration, so I don't see the relevance of your last comment.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    When you tell someone who cannot find a job because his industry had been primarily overrun with illegal immigrants due to the nature of the industry (such as construction) that it is not the illegal immigrants preventing them from finding a job they are obviously going to look at you have no idea what you are talking about.

    An argument that consists of "The very real problems you experience in your every day life are not that bad because my econ books says so." is not going to take you very far.

    This is a misreading of my position. I'm not suggesting that something that is clearly bad "isn't that bad" (such as, say, the unemployment rate), I'm saying that there is a mis-attribution. It's as though one person is suggesting that demons are causing disease, where the literature suggests that bacteria are the culprit. When I bring up bacteria, I say I'm ignoring the problems that the demons are causing.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The thing is illegal immigration exacerbates many existing problems, unemployment being one of them. In a bad economy, with more people out of work, people are more directly competing with illegal immigrants than in a good economy. Certain industries are staffed primarily by illegal immigrants now due to lax regulation, as a cost cutting measure, and because the people you are directly competing with are hiring them. If you pay your workers minimum wage you cannot compete, and go out of business. In a good economy these jobs are less desirable, in a bad economy paying your workers as little as possible is ever more important. This further exacerbates unemployment problems.

    You need to understand that Academia is disconnected from reality. Economics textbooks are not economic reality. There is a reason by and large economics is a bastard science. Unlike the hard sciences where you can form a hypothesis, test it, and get repeatable results Economics does not work that way. All you can do is look at historic data, try and extrapolate which series of factors played into how the economy reacted, and hope you are right.

    Academic knowledge is not real world knowledge, oftentimes they diverge. How your college business classes say a business should be run, and how a business are run are often very different. One of the reasons employers value experience, because they need someone who can actually get the job done, not someone with a degree that says they should know how to get the job done.

    You can keep pounding on an Economics book, but the truth here is that we do not know the long term effects on the economy of illegal immigration. Studies are by and large jaded, politically motivated, designed to give the intended result, and at the very best speculative. We are treading new economic waters every day, and anyone claiming they know for a fact how things are going to turn out next is deluding themselves.

    Which is where you come in. You admit your policies cause problems from certain groups of Americans. Obviously those certain groups of Americans are going to disagree with you. You can't tell someone who is unemployed, can't find work, whos unemployment is about to run out, and has a family to feed that don't worry you will get to pay the maid you cant afford less and your fruit you don't buy will be cheaper.

    Second post.

    Take someone working in construction who cannot find work because all jobs are taken by illegal immigrants, and they are told by the people doing the hiring that they are unhireable because they would need to be paid minimum wage and require the proper safety gear whereas these guys over here will work for 2 bucks an hour, with no safety gear. Moreover even if they wanted to hire you they couldn't because that would cause their cost of labor to go up, which means they would have to bid jobs higher, which means they would get less jobs overall. Your response to this reality, that happens every day is that I do not see a study done on it, and according to my econ book this should just cause you to find a better job somewhere else.

    This is not a hypothetical example I am using. People who used to make good money in construction, now cannot find work or work that only pays minimum wage where previously they would make much more than that. Why? Because a surplus of unskilled labor moved in, drove competition way up, which drove prices way down. Simple economics.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I like how you slammed economics and then promptly invoked your own pet model to justify your case. What's that Keynes quote? "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist"?

    By the way, on this:
    Detharin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    As an aside here, your choice of language is really creepy at times.

    [...]

    As to the aside, your feelings are not my concern. Tend to your own emotional state, I have no more control over your feelings than you allow me. You will begin feeling joy in 3...2...

    I was just telling you that you sound pretty damn sociopathic; I wasn't actually expecting you to care (see also: sociopathy). It was, you know, a friendly FYI.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The argument is to implement a national ID as a component of a policy to allow for freer migration, so I don't see the relevance of your last comment.

    I'm confused. My understanding was that the proposed ID system was to enable law enforcement to have an easier time identifying refugees ('illegal aliens' to use the term most Americans insist on)? By asking for identification that everyone would be mandated to carry?

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I was just telling you that you sound pretty damn sociopathic; I wasn't actually expecting you to care (see also: sociopathy). It was, you know, a friendly FYI.

    Didn't you hear? Mexicans 'aren't his problem'.


    Perhaps he isn't aware that brazen white supremacy & fascism has been out of fashion for quite a few decades.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    The argument is to implement a national ID as a component of a policy to allow for freer migration, so I don't see the relevance of your last comment.

    I'm confused. My understanding was that the proposed ID system was to enable law enforcement to have an easier time identifying refugees ('illegal aliens' to use the term most Americans insist on)? By asking for identification that everyone would be mandated to carry?

    Which would therefore allow us to curb some of the issues people freak out about immigrants, which would therefore permit greater amounts of immigration. etc.

    Basically it's a cost-benefit analysis thing; if we have a policy which reduces some of the costs, we should logically move towards favoring it more.

    (this is all in a weird bubble where we assume vaguely benevolent technocrats instead of, y'know, politics, really)

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.