Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

13031323335

Posts

  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    If you're going to try and be snarky you should make sure that your comment has some relevance to the discussion.

    Do you even understand the limitations of anecdotal evidence or do we need to explain this very slowly?

    "I know this one neighborhood" is not relevant. I've seen plenty of great and terrible neighborhoods with and without immigrant communities and whether one specific city or area is great or shitty in one poster's non-scientific opinion based on individuals who may or may not be illegal immigrants is pretty much the perfect definition of not relevant to the discussion.

    Anecdotal evidence can provide context, but it can't be used to prove a trend. Without broader evidence, "my drive through this city sucks" means essentially nothing.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited August 2010

    I would really prefer that there wasn't a minimum wage at all

    Seriously? That's horrible. No wonder you think it's unimportant how flooded the job market is with low wage workers.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I like how, almost immediately after Yar posted this:
    Yar wrote: »
    For the most part, this discussion goes around in a circle indefinitely. The anti-immigrant will talk about the economy, until that is clearly proven false, then they'll focus on low-skill workers, until that is proven false, then they'll bring up crime, until that is proven false, and by then enough pages have gone by that someone can get away with bringing up the economy again. If it hasn't been long enough for that to work yet, then instead the crime argument will segue into the "the law is the law, being an illegal immigrant is a crime" fallacy trap for a few pages until it's safe to bring up the economy again. This discussion has gone in that same circle through about 6 threads and many months recently.

    we have segued straight into crime, from low-skill workers.

    And here comes Detharin with "being an illegal immigrant is a crime", right on cue.

    I love this thread.

    rndmhero on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Sorry, but when did I intimate that Manassass was anything more than part of a trend that Northern Virginia as a whole has been facing over the past decade?

    adytum on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    Manassass is a city, not a neighborhood, and it really is that bad, and it's indicative of problems the region as a whole is having.

    I believe it's that bad. I don't believe that "lol go back to mexico u tardz" is the logical conclusion.

    And yes, as has been pointed out over and over again, wailing about the neighborhood going to hell in a handbasket and those funny people with their weird customs and food who don't even speak the language is not new. I have yet to hear a reason that this supposed situation is uniquely true about recent immigrants when it wasn't true (at least, not in any meaningful sense) about past waves of immigration.

    Can you point out where I said anything like "go back to mexico u tardz?" Or where I said I have a problem with immigrants in general?

    You won't find either because I don't believe either of those things.

    Certainly other posters on the "anti-illegal" side of the immigrant have caustic attitudes towards immigration, but I don't. I just have a problem with illegal immigration.

    But then, I have problems with the Unites States' immigration policy as well.

    adytum on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010

    I would really prefer that there wasn't a minimum wage at all

    Seriously? That's horrible. No wonder you think it's unimportant how flooded the job market is with low wage workers.

    Minimum wages are a tax on the extremely low-income, transferred to the somewhat less low-income group. It is very bad at transferring income from rich employers to poor employees, since rich employers can and do simply alter the numbers and types of employed. Negative income taxes for low-income groups or guaranteed-income plans are much better, economically speaking.

    But either way the impact of the minimum wage on low-income employment is relatively small and the benefits to those who gain are large, so it is a relatively unimportant issue. We've been over this before in other threads.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    You may have been over it, but it's still totally shocking to me -- that you guys think you've 'debunked' the idea that low wage workers have a drag on middle class wages or that you think that this country, which has seen the middle class stagnate for 3 decades while the upper 1% have gotten phenomenally wealthy, don't need minimum wages.

    Sorry, that's pretty out there.

    Guess I know who I'm talking to, then.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Can you point out where I said anything like "go back to mexico u tardz?" Or where I said I have a problem with immigrants in general?

    Can you point out to me why you're taking a comment about Namrok's post and pretending I was imputing it to you? Unless you're the same person posting under two different names I'm totally at a loss here.

    The issue wasn't whether Mannassas is or is not as bad as Namrok claims; it's that he was pretending his "Sunday drive by" is some kind of useful evidence about immigration policy.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    Can you point out where I said anything like "go back to mexico u tardz?" Or where I said I have a problem with immigrants in general?

    Can you point out to me why you're taking a comment about Namrok's post and pretending I was imputing it to you? Unless you're the same person posting under two different names I'm totally at a loss here.

    The issue wasn't whether Mannassas is or is not as bad as Namrok claims; it's that he was pretending his "Sunday drive by" is some kind of useful evidence about immigration policy.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=16017532&postcount=1361

    You quoted me and made those remarks; if I read too much into your response I apologize.

    adytum on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    You may have been over it, but it's still totally shocking to me -- that you guys think you've 'debunked' the idea that low wage workers have a drag on middle class wages or that you think that this country, which has seen the middle class stagnate for 3 decades while the upper 1% have gotten phenomenally wealthy, don't need minimum wages.

    Sorry, that's pretty out there.

    Guess I know who I'm talking to, then.

    Oh, they don't drag down middle-class wages. Minimum wages boost middle-class wages; by making very unskilled labor more expensive, they make substitution towards semiskilled labor more attractive.

    It's more like this: minimum wages are better than no redistribution at all. But higher amounts of progressive redistribution are better than minimum wages.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010

    I would really prefer that there wasn't a minimum wage at all

    Seriously? That's horrible. No wonder you think it's unimportant how flooded the job market is with low wage workers.

    I'd prefer we just take care of extremely poor people with welfare or, as ronya noted, a negative income tax.

    Minimum wages basically mean that fewer people are employed, but the ones who do are paid more. This doesn't strike me as a strictly good thing.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Minimum wages basically mean that fewer people are employed, but the ones who do are paid more. This doesn't strike me as a strictly good thing.
    Can you point me in the direction of research (readable for non-economists) that examine this in different countries? I'm asking because my (anecdotal) impression from Western European countries vs. the United States would be that WE, which tends to have minimum wages and welfare, does a better job of making sure that people don't have to live in poverty than the US do. However, I imagine that there are lots of factors here, e.g. it seems pretty clear to me that employees have more, and more robust, rights in Europe than in the States, so it's more difficult for employers to squeeze their workers.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    @ hockey: Like Loren and Ronya are stating, removing the minimum wage isn't some nefarious "hahaha fuck the poor" plan. Economics be complicated, yo. Read up on it.

    @ adytum: That Manassass is or is not a piece of shit isn't something that's contested. If you claim it is, I have no reason at all to doubt that claim. Whether your experiences there (or Namrok's) are relevant as evidence relating to illegal immigration is an entirely different matter. Namrok is presenting his Sunday drive as relevant, that's silly goosery.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Remember that all a minimum wage does is make jobs below a certain income level illegal; it does nothing to ensure that the jobs will still be there.

    The top 1% are incredibly wealthy; this top 1% are also, generally, not the people who directly employ or are employed at sub-minimum-wage levels. Even in the scenario where the employer bears all the cost of a minimum wage policy - where employment remains exactly the same and only low wages increase - we have done nothing about the 1%. As far as we are concerned about income inequality, we should just tax said 1% and pay it out to low-income groups.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Thirith wrote: »
    Minimum wages basically mean that fewer people are employed, but the ones who do are paid more. This doesn't strike me as a strictly good thing.
    Can you point me in the direction of research (readable for non-economists) that examine this in different countries? I'm asking because my (anecdotal) impression from Western European countries vs. the United States would be that WE, which tends to have minimum wages and welfare, does a better job of making sure that people don't have to live in poverty than the US do. However, I imagine that there are lots of factors here, e.g. it seems pretty clear to me that employees have more, and more robust, rights in Europe than in the States, so it's more difficult for employers to squeeze their workers.

    Some countries you might think of as more socialist than the US do not actually have minimum wages, e.g. - Sweden, Germany for most industries, Denmark, etc.

    Your suggestion that there are more factors protecting rights in Europe is right. Transfers from the rich to the poor in the US are actually higher than in the Nordic states; the problem is that Americans face more risk; many of the transfers go to people who don't need it, while people who do need it don't get enough. And the US safety net tends to let people fall through - many low-income Americans are eligible for far more programs than they think they are.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    What reason is there to believe that illegal immigrants are going to be that much more likely to commit serious (such as felonies) crimes than legal immigrants who are in similar demographics? The whole illegal immigrant thing isn't that great of an indication considering that people in all demographics break laws they consider stupid all the time and don't end up committing serious crimes.

    I don't think anyone has actually suggested that they are. The only accusation I have seen is that:

    1) They default on mortgages.
    2) Have messy yards.
    3) Violate health and building codes.

    None of which have actually been refuted.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Thanks for the answer, Ronya (is that user name taken from Astrid Lindgren by any chance?). Will have to check out the links in a couple of days. (I'm currently stuck in a hotel in Brazil with wobbly internet connection.)

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    1) These statistics are based on reported crimes. Illegals who are victims of crime almost certainly under-report. Thus, you need to account for that.

    Native-born Americans also under-report. Accounting for unreported crimes leads you towards insanity because you'd have to measure what people haven't told you.

    I mean, you have a valid point but it's not usefull. We can't know whether illegals under-report more than the general populace because they don't tell you.

    Surveys can establish an estimate of the level of under-reporting. I'm pretty sure studies have been done on this in the past. Though I don't know where to find them.

    I know, but those surveys remain unreliable even with normal citizens. Shit, surveys are as unreliable as reported crimes.

    I'm just saying that this is a venue not worth investigating. I can get behind illegals under-reporting crimes but that just means the reporting of crimes is not the best way to see whether illegals up the crime-rate.

    Julius on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    1) These statistics are based on reported crimes. Illegals who are victims of crime almost certainly under-report. Thus, you need to account for that.

    Native-born Americans also under-report. Accounting for unreported crimes leads you towards insanity because you'd have to measure what people haven't told you.

    I mean, you have a valid point but it's not usefull. We can't know whether illegals under-report more than the general populace because they don't tell you.

    Surveys can establish an estimate of the level of under-reporting. I'm pretty sure studies have been done on this in the past. Though I don't know where to find them.

    I know, but those surveys remain unreliable even with normal citizens. Shit, surveys are as unreliable as reported crimes.

    I'm just saying that this is a venue not worth investigating. I can get behind illegals under-reporting crimes but that just means the reporting of crimes is not the best way to see whether illegals up the crime-rate.

    That's fine too.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I happen to have a Dane in the room with me. Danish minimum wage is indeed not set by the state, though the state empowers almost everybody to be union represented. So the unions negotiate with employer associations.

    Functionally, it's about 20$ an hour right now. But it's a little misleading to say there's no minimum wage. There is one, it's just a little more flexible.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I happen to have a Dane in the room with me. Danish minimum wage is indeed not set by the state, though the state empowers almost everybody to be union represented. So the unions negotiate with employer associations.

    Functionally, it's about 20$ an hour right now. But it's a little misleading to say there's no minimum wage. There is one, it's just a little more flexible.

    Almost everyone would earn well above minimum wage in the absence of minimum wage law; the little bit of flexibility at the margin is crucial.
    Thirith wrote: »
    (is that user name taken from Astrid Lindgren by any chance?)

    No, sadly. Apparently it's Quenya for "dog", although I have no personal knowledge. A friend suggested it after observing many, many canine avatars.

    e: apparently "chaser', hound of chase". :?:, really.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Almost everyone would earn well above minimum wage in the absence of minimum wage law; the little bit of flexibility at the margin is crucial.

    Um what? Is there a special meaning of "almost everyone" that I'm not aware of, or is this a way of saying that the government has cleverly managed to set "minimum wage" at exactly the lowest level of market wages?

    And of course this assumes there is a single minimum wage across the board, which is not the case given that there is a federal minimum wage that differs from state minimum wages, with exemptions for certain professions.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Almost everyone would earn well above minimum wage in the absence of minimum wage law; the little bit of flexibility at the margin is crucial.

    Um what? Is there a special meaning of "almost everyone" that I'm not aware of, or is this a way of saying that the government has cleverly managed to set "minimum wage" at exactly the lowest level of market wages?

    And of course this assumes there is a single minimum wage across the board, which is not the case given that there is a federal minimum wage that differs from state minimum wages, with exemptions for certain professions.

    No, no. Most people do not earn minimum wage in the US. About 97% of hourly-wage workers, in fact. So the difference between "most people are covered" and "everyone is covered" is important, especially if the coverage is flexible and partially voluntary.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Almost everyone would earn well above minimum wage in the absence of minimum wage law; the little bit of flexibility at the margin is crucial.

    Um what? Is there a special meaning of "almost everyone" that I'm not aware of, or is this a way of saying that the government has cleverly managed to set "minimum wage" at exactly the lowest level of market wages?

    And of course this assumes there is a single minimum wage across the board, which is not the case given that there is a federal minimum wage that differs from state minimum wages, with exemptions for certain professions.

    No, no. Most people do not earn minimum wage in the US. About 97% of hourly-wage workers, in fact. So the difference between "most people are covered" and "everyone is covered" is important, especially if the coverage is flexible and partially voluntary.

    Yeah, it's like saying that most people still have health-insurance. It's true, but the whole issue is about those who don't have it. Most hourly-wage workers earn more than the minimum wage because there are so many who earn based on hours.


    A minimum wage law works within the economy. A country like Sweden doesn't really need such a law because through various means it's ensured that they'll earn it anyway.

    Here in the Netherlands we have a minimum wage but due to unemployment-benefits it only really applies to young people. As an adult taking a job that pays below what you would get in your monthly check is silly. The government would never revoke your welfare even if it was legal to pay below a minimum wage. You simply won't find a job that pays less than welfare which is the cut-of point for wage, one that you should take anyway. (okay, it's not exactly like that but whatever,)

    Julius on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Can you point out where I said anything like "go back to mexico u tardz?" Or where I said I have a problem with immigrants in general?

    You won't find either because I don't believe either of those things.

    Certainly other posters on the "anti-illegal" side of the immigrant have caustic attitudes towards immigration, but I don't. I just have a problem with illegal immigration.

    But then, I have problems with the Unites States' immigration policy as well.

    I do not think anyone currently arguing on the side of harsher penalties for illegal immigrants, or as I call it team Deportuchet (The newest advance in Deportapult technology), is calling for an end to legal immigration. Heck we like legal immigration. Legal immigrants are good! All the research we have says that legal immigrants are a boom to our economy.

    However when you start saying things like "I wish people we have to go through a health screening before coming here.", "I would prefer it people would be able to provide evidence they could legally support themselves before coming here.", "I wish we had some way to properly document everyone who is coming here.", or "It sucks they way the certain industries have been abusing tech workers by making them work under the threat of their visa being revoked. What steps could we take to avoid this happening in other industries?" Why then you become a racist!

    All kidding aside, in a perfect world we would secure out borders, be better able to track the demand for both migrant and permanent resident labor, and be able to issue visas in sufficient quantities and with sufficient protections to both meet demand and prevent the exploitation of workers under threat of losing their visa. Frankly I do not think anyone is really opposed to that.

    What I personally oppose is turning a blind eye to the current problems of illegal immigration due to not wanting to lose either political support, or the cheap labor force. The problem we have is that quite a few of the people we have here illegally would not qualify for visas either due to health, criminal records, or the fact the are strictly just unskilled labor with nothing really to offer other than their ability to be exploited.

    However just making them all legal only exacerbates our problems. Ideally immigrants should be filling jobs either due to skills, or due our desire to subsidize the workforce of an industry. If it is financially viable to get the job done with an all American workforce for legal wages in legal conditions that is the desired outcome. Then legally bring in as many immigrants as we need to fill the gaps.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    However just making them all legal only exacerbates our problems. Ideally immigrants should be filling jobs either due to skills, or due our desire to subsidize the workforce of an industry. If it is financially viable to get the job done with an all American workforce for legal wages in legal conditions that is the desired outcome. Then legally bring in as many immigrants as we need to fill the gaps.

    Ideally people could come here and exchange their labor for money without the threat of deportation putting the squeeze on them.

    How exactly would making them all legal exacerbate the problem? If they're all here legally, employers who would otherwise exploit them can't put the threat of deportation over their heads, and the immigrants could go to the police if there was some sort of trouble.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Because the vast majority would fail one more more of our qualifications. Imagine every currently working illegal immigrant had to have his job register him, his wages, and his working conditions with a US government agency. How many would be employed the next day?

    They then fail the legally be able to support themselves test because they have no job, and no way to support themselves.

    Their illegitimacy is why there is a market for them.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    However when you start saying things like "I wish people we have to go through a health screening before coming here.", "I would prefer it people would be able to provide evidence they could legally support themselves before coming here.", "I wish we had some way to properly document everyone who is coming here.", or "It sucks they way the certain industries have been abusing tech workers by making them work under the threat of their visa being revoked. What steps could we take to avoid this happening in other industries?" Why then you become a racist!

    Keep playing the martyr; you're not fooling anyone. I'm just going to repost this since you insist on playing the victim over your "enlightened" views.
    rndmhero wrote:
    There's a pretty distinct difference between arguing that the welfare of citizenry of other sovereign nations should not be the primary focus of US policy and stating that Mexicans are bugs to be sprayed away whose suffering is meaningless. One is a fairly reasonable stance on social policy; the other exhibits a borderline sociopathic disregard for human beings. Detharin has stated multiple times that not only does he have absolutely zero concern for the suffering of human beings who aren't him, but that he is amused at how this stance causes offence to others. It is only reasonable that such an attitude should be found morally repugnant to civilized individuals.

    rndmhero on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    rndmhero wrote: »

    Keep playing the martyr; you're not fooling anyone. I'm just going to repost this since you insist on playing the victim over your "enlightened" views.
    rndmhero wrote:
    There's a pretty distinct difference between arguing that the welfare of citizenry of other sovereign nations should not be the primary focus of US policy and stating that Mexicans are bugs to be sprayed away whose suffering is meaningless. One is a fairly reasonable stance on social policy; the other exhibits a borderline sociopathic disregard for human beings. Detharin has stated multiple times that not only does he have absolutely zero concern for the suffering of human beings who aren't him, but that he is amused at how this stance causes offence to others. It is only reasonable that such an attitude should be found morally repugnant to civilized individuals.

    Hey look here is something I posted somewhere else about how Detharin sucks! Do you really have anything to contribute? I would think I have made it rather clear that the welfare of citizens of other nations should not be the primary focus of us policy.

    Actually the bug spray metaphor had nothing to do with killing anyone. Getting your house sprayed for bugs more often than not does not kill the majority of them. They are aware of the poison and instead head to more friendly neighbors yards.

    You are free however to take offense at my constant posting about the deportapult, family size deportapult, or the deportuchet. These however would be actually references to killing people, sort of like bugs, but instead of stepping on them it would be more of a gravity thing. Sudden stop and all that.

    I really could care less if I offend anyone. At the end of the day I either choose to screw the poor, or choose to screw non-citizens. Real simple hierarchy of concern here Me > People I like > American citizens I don't know > People I do not like > Illegal immigrants > Mimes > Rapists.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Because the vast majority would fail one more more of our qualifications. Imagine every currently working illegal immigrant had to have his job register him, his wages, and his working conditions with a US government agency. How many would be employed the next day?

    They then fail the legally be able to support themselves test because they have no job, and no way to support themselves.

    Their illegitimacy is why there is a market for them.

    I imagine quite a few would have jobs, actually, and the ones who are working in exploitative conditions could use the law to get out of said conditions. Their willingness to work is why there's a market for them, but yes, working for low wages do help. I'm not sure what extent the illegally low wages is necessary for hires though.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    At the end of the day I either choose to screw the poor, or choose to screw non-citizens.

    That's a false dichotomy. Welfare can be used to target the poor while opening the borders to more immigrants.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Because the vast majority would fail one more more of our qualifications. Imagine every currently working illegal immigrant had to have his job register him, his wages, and his working conditions with a US government agency. How many would be employed the next day?

    They then fail the legally be able to support themselves test because they have no job, and no way to support themselves.

    Their illegitimacy is why there is a market for them.

    Wait. Do you really think that wages are lower in the rest of the world only due to greater exploitation of workers there, or do you think lower amounts of capital might have something do to with it? Because, you know, this worldview would explain a lot.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »

    Keep playing the martyr; you're not fooling anyone. I'm just going to repost this since you insist on playing the victim over your "enlightened" views.
    rndmhero wrote:
    There's a pretty distinct difference between arguing that the welfare of citizenry of other sovereign nations should not be the primary focus of US policy and stating that Mexicans are bugs to be sprayed away whose suffering is meaningless. One is a fairly reasonable stance on social policy; the other exhibits a borderline sociopathic disregard for human beings. Detharin has stated multiple times that not only does he have absolutely zero concern for the suffering of human beings who aren't him, but that he is amused at how this stance causes offence to others. It is only reasonable that such an attitude should be found morally repugnant to civilized individuals.

    Hey look here is something I posted somewhere else about how Detharin sucks! Do you really have anything to contribute? I would think I have made it rather clear that the welfare of citizens of other nations should not be the primary focus of us policy.

    At this point, I'm satisfied that my contribution is simply refuting your pathetic incessant attempts to play the victim card.
    Actually the bug spray metaphor had nothing to do with killing anyone. Getting your house sprayed for bugs more often than not does not kill the majority of them. They are aware of the poison and instead head to more friendly neighbors yards.

    You are free however to take offense at my constant posting about the deportapult, family size deportapult, or the deportuchet. These however would be actually references to killing people, sort of like bugs, but instead of stepping on them it would be more of a gravity thing. Sudden stop and all that.

    I think it's pretty clear that this is over your head at this point, as joking about death has nothing to do with why you are ridiculously distasteful.
    I really could care less if I offend anyone. At the end of the day I either choose to screw the poor, or choose to screw non-citizens. Real simple hierarchy of concern here Me > People I like > American citizens I don't know > People I do not like > Illegal immigrants > Mimes > Rapists.

    Thanks for clearing that up. I think a lot of us were really, really unsure as to where you valued yourself in respect to other human beings.

    rndmhero on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Wait. Do you really think that wages are lower in the rest of the world only due to greater exploitation of workers there, or do you think lower amounts of capital might have something do to with it? Because, you know, this worldview would explain a lot.

    Not at all, their lower amounts of capital, possible lower amounts of exploitable resources, culture, stability of a region, and their system of government all come into play. Mexico for instance has quite a bit of exploitable natural resources. However the corruption in their government, among numerous other factors (including our protectionist policies in place on our farming industries) have left them in their current state. Personally I do not thinking short of a US invasion is really going to solve the issue.
    That's a false dichotomy. Welfare can be used to target the poor while opening the borders to more immigrants.

    Except you are not only placing a higher burden on it due to a huge influx of now a now legal immigrant population suddenly discovering their employers are less eager to employ them, would rather fire them, and hire a new batch of illegal immigrants who did not make the cutoff.

    You never answered my question, what do you think would happen if every illegal immigrant showed up to work and asked his employer to submit paperwork documenting he did have a job there, what he was paid, what his hours were, and those conditions had to meet our current labor laws?

    We do not need everyone who wants to come here, moreover we do not need the people we have here already, furthermore some of the people who are here now should not be here in the first place. Your solution does not solve this.
    rndmhero wrote: »
    Thanks for clearing that up. I think a lot of us were really, really unsure as to where you valued yourself in respect to other human beings.

    Glad to clear that up, since your work here is done feel free to fly off Concern Troll. I am sure your valuable skills are needed elsewhere. You have firmly established that no one here truly cares about America's poor. My token care, while woefully insufficient to what your ideal human being would demonstrate, is nevertheless greater than the care of the other side. It is ok, everything can be solved by comprehensive welfare reform including much greater taxes on the middle class! I am sure that will go over well.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    That's a false dichotomy. Welfare can be used to target the poor while opening the borders to more immigrants.

    Except you are not only placing a higher burden on it due to a huge influx of now a now legal immigrant population suddenly discovering their employers are less eager to employ them, would rather fire them, and hire a new batch of illegal immigrants who did not make the cutoff.

    You never answered my question, what do you think would happen if every illegal immigrant showed up to work and asked his employer to submit paperwork documenting he did have a job there, what he was paid, what his hours were, and those conditions had to meet our current labor laws?

    We do not need everyone who wants to come here, moreover we do not need the people we have here already, furthermore some of the people who are here now should not be here in the first place. Your solution does not solve this.

    1) More burden is placed on what, how and why?

    2) I did answer your question.

    3) People won't come here if they aren't wanted. Immigrants are responsive to the job market, as the numbers of immigrants (legal and illegal) ebb and flow with said market.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010

    1) More burden is placed on what, how and why?

    2) I did answer your question.

    3) People won't come here if they aren't wanted. Immigrants are responsive to the job market, as the numbers of immigrants (legal and illegal) ebb and flow with said market.

    1. Our social safety nets, illegal immigrants made citizens would now qualify for them.

    2. You keep ignoring the fact that what illegal immigrants offer is that the are exploitable. If they were not they would be fired in a second. Telling your employer they need to now pay you a legal wage, and document that they need you would quickly result in that firing. Moreover why should we desire importing immigrants to do jobs that we already have people here willing to do the job for legal wages? Ideally we would only import labor for jobs we have verified we cannot find people to do locally.

    3. Agreed, and Arizona as well as voters are making it quite clear that is the case. They are changing the rules of the market to act in what they perceive as their own best interest. For a percentage of them they are right, as you admit illegal immigration does hurt some people. For others they would rather deal with the consequences of less illegal immigration rather than continue living with the problems they experience.

    It is completely viable for the American voting public to demand something be done to curtail illegal immigration. Were the federal government to do its job this would be much less an issue.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    There is an area between "illegal" and "citizen", like "guest workers" or "work permits". To which you can attach all sorts of fascinating conditions like "no recourse to public funds".

    Immigrants offer more than exploitability. I asked you earlier whether you thought that wage disparities were driven by exploitation elsewhere; you said no. So there will still be a wage disparity even after exploitation is removed, and people will still come. You claim to worry about the American poor. Then we should be importing tons and tons of semiskilled and skilled labor, yes? Thus increasing the real wage of the poor?

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    There is an area between "illegal" and "citizen", like "guest workers" or "work permits". To which you can attach all sorts of fascinating conditions like "no recourse to public funds".

    Immigrants offer more than exploitability. I asked you earlier whether you thought that wage disparities were driven by exploitation elsewhere; you said no. So there will still be a wage disparity even after exploitation is removed, and people will still come. You claim to worry about the American poor. Then we should be importing tons and tons of semiskilled and skilled labor, yes? Thus increasing the relative real wage of the poor?

    Such as in my post where I said I am more than happy to have immigrants who can pass a physical, and prove they can fill a currently vacant need in the American economy at legal wages. Unfortunately for the vast majority currently here they would not qualify to be citizens.

    For the second when I wrote about half a page detailing why different areas of the world would have different wages. I see no reason to exacerbate the problems of America's poor in favor of illegal immigrants.

    People would still come here even with no job because being poor here is better than being poor in quite a few places.

    As I have said multiple times my position is to bring in labor to supplement our existing work force in areas where we cannot fill the job with an American worker, or their skills are in enough demand to warrant it.

    Bringing in several million unskilled workers because life sucks in Mexico is not the form of Immigration reform I am interested in. How many existing jobs can we fill with American workers? Fill them. Now what industries do we want to subsidize with legal immigrant workers? Once we ensure that demand cannot be met with Americans, and that we are not going to fall into the same trap as we have without our technology workers by all means bring them in.

    Moreover I would rather fill said Visas from people still living in their home counties, than people who have already shown a disregard for our laws. For those here deport, or convince to self deport until the problem of illegal immigrants is solved. Securing our borders is a far cry from closing our borders.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Moreover I would rather fill said Visas from people still living in their home counties, than people who have already shown a disregard for our laws.
    I have problems with this part, because it seems to imply that showing disregard for one law (immigration) is likely to mean disregard for all laws. Why would that be the case? I'd imagine that most people are selective in which laws they uphold diligently - most of what I'm talking about here are misdemeanours, admittedly, but it would seem to me that someone breaking immigration laws because they want a better life for their family isn't automatically a worse criminal than someone who, say, breaks smoking laws because, damn it, he needs a cigarette!

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Thirith wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Moreover I would rather fill said Visas from people still living in their home counties, than people who have already shown a disregard for our laws.
    I have problems with this part, because it seems to imply that showing disregard for one law (immigration) is likely to mean disregard for all laws. Why would that be the case? I'd imagine that most people are selective in which laws they uphold diligently - most of what I'm talking about here are misdemeanours, admittedly, but it would seem to me that someone breaking immigration laws because they want a better life for their family isn't automatically a worse criminal than someone who, say, breaks smoking laws because, damn it, he needs a cigarette!

    Are you really equating illegal entry with violating smoking laws?

    This is why some of us want to pull out our hair, because you don't seem to get that not every person that crosses that border is the salt of the earth paragon that keeps getting brought up. You want to be able to vet the people who are coming in so you're not getting a child molester who happens to have TB.

    legionofone on
Sign In or Register to comment.