The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Eliminationist Rhetoric and the Culpability of Media Figures
Posts
Only if you're expected to earn enough money in tips to make up the difference.
Well, the easy thing to say lately has been to crack down on businesses who knowingly hire illegals, but that's not exactly the easiest thing to accomplish. Most of those businesses are kept off the books and pay day labor in cash.
As for the rest, I think we need to seriously curtail work-permit laws to need-based positions only. We don't "need" fry cooks at McDonalds. We don't "need" discount lawn care. Unfortunately, there's a lot of federal overhead costs in all that red tape, but I'd start with doing away with a clause hardly any other industrial nation has: the "instant citizenship by birth" clause.
What about those born to legal citizens?
British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
Cracking down on business who knowingly hire illegals will just result in a lot of businesses who'll be allegedly unknowingly hiring illegals. Cheap labor is cheap, especially if you can threaten to start checking in order to bargain their illegal wage further down (edit: unless of course you have a new idea of how to conduct enforcement, in which case do elaborate).
I suppose by 'need-based' you mean "I can't (reasonably) find an American who'll do this job at a wage that'll keep it worth doing". I can imagine how this will be hard to check. Nonetheless, it's worth pointing out that your country already has enough difficulty enforcing the laws it has, so restrictions need to be designed to enable keeping track of immigrants. Curtailing work-permit laws seems liable to encourage a lot more working without permits than any real gains.
Similar doubts over the relevance of birthright citizenship, really. Those who've gained such citizenship are your legal workers. I thought the problem was your illegal workers?
Yes, because what this country really needs is a permanent underclass.
And I'm still curious as to why the conversation is pretty much restricted to Mexican Landscapers when illegal immigrants do a hell of a lot more than just that. Like I said, the primary cause of someone's legal status turning to the il- part is overstaying their Visa. Engineers may mow their own lawn, but I don't think its their day job.
When was this theoretical surge of illegal immigrants? Illegal immigration was a political hot potato for Ronald Reagan, in his first term.
So what you're saying is that its not crap, but actual fact and you just don't like it. And you're demonizing illegal immigrants for being incredibly poor?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
That's an incredibly loaded and disingenuine way to frame what you're asking. No one's begrudging them for being poor. But some are begrudging them for injecting our lowest income levels with more dependents while simultaneously taking those jobs from people currently doing them at standard legalized rates.
I guess it's because you're being deliberately obtuse?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Uhh... no.
I look at France, where they have people from Morocco and Algeria whose families have been living there for three and four generations but aren't citizens, and I have to strongly disagree with you.
Exclusionist policies cause social problems down the line, because government isn't all powerful.
Assimilation generally plays to America's strengths a bit more.
By "win" I mean center-left folk like myself.
I think you mean to say that by 'we' you meant center-left folk.
By 'win' you should probably be meaning 'weep for humanity.'
I think my brain is dying.
Things like this didn't happen when I joined this forum a few years ago.
It's because you've spawned. Your biological function has been completed and now you start the long slow dive into oblivion.
:P
Heh, my mom was volunteering at the Y a couple of weeks ago and someone started complaining about immigrants. She turned to them and said "don't you think we should support them for a few years and help them learn english and basic USA survival skills? That way they can be successful and give back to the community just like us" The person said something to the negative and ranted about how immigrants never come out to anything good. My mom promptly shut her up by saying "Gee, I'm sorry you think I haven't done anything good with my life."
Also I do think more immigrant community leaders should be coming out against illegal immigration. The problems (or perceived problems if you don't think are any real problems) with illegal immigrants has made legal immigration much much harder over the last generation.
Yeah, those marches weren't shit.
They do "come out against illegal immigration". They want the US to revise our immigration system to something a bit saner. Sorry if they're not saying exactly what you want them to say.
US immigration policy is the most sane policy there is! I mean look, I have the test results right here that prove Italians are dumber than Germans!
However, from a legal standpoint, it's exactly like a bunch of shoplifters protesting that prices at the store are too high.
There's proper ways to protest, and none of them involve telling the country you're in illegally what rights you deserve.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Not to mention that several of the reasons that they're here in the first place are due to the US?
From a legal standpoint Iranian Basij are in the right when they club old women for protesting in the street.
From a legal standpoint a gay couple who have been together for thirty years are nothing more than roomates if they live in Virginia.
I find the argument unpersuasive.
In reality, the people protesting are members of our society. They live here, they work here, their family is here and they are planning a future here. In reality, the Iranian woman has the power to think and speak and make her own decisions about what is right and wrong. In reality, the gay couple is married.
That a government has not licensed these obvious realities does not make them less real. It just makes the government do cruel, brutal things because its eyes are filled with a phantom of how the world should be. And the penalty is that not only does this blindness make the government a brutal goliath, it makes it clumsy and occasionally laughable. For instance, I here tell there are no homosexuals in Iran.
I hardly think beating the crap out of an old woman and not redefining marriage are comparable. Yes all governments have a view of how the world should be but that naturally depends on the leadership. I am sure everybody has a view of how the world should be.
But there other reasons, besides for legal ones that make some proposals regarding illegal immigration absurd.
British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
Yes, a law stating there should be guidelines for citizenship is directly comparable to a law stating it is acceptable to beat women.
Bravo.
Yes, words without any context don't make much sense when they are read.
Shampoo.
In that they are both laws that have rather troubling consequences, yes they are quite comparable. Which was coincidentally the point I was making.
In your post you made a mistake though. You referenced the two things I compared, but refered to one in a different context than another. Which is ironic in a post questioning someone's comparison.
You could have said "a law stating there should be guidelines for citizenship" and "a law stating their should be guidelines for appropriate public speech."
Or you could have said "police kidnapping people and exiling them for not being licensed to live where they live" and "police beating an old woman."
But mixing and matching like you did between a description of a law's intent or function and the the implications of its enforcement was a bit deceptive.
Applecart rex salamander to you too my good sandwich horde!
Pfft. Sheer applesauce.
Has this been posted already?
Someone tell me Ann Coulter is just trying to sell books in the end...please?
Honestly, you're better off not thinking about Coulter because all it's going to do is piss you off. She's basically the sort of person who, if they were on the internet, starts flame wars/trolls/etc., except she does it in the real world. Her sole objective is to piss people off; she pisses off her opposition for obvious reasons, but she's also as inflammatory as possible in order to get even her own supporters/customers pissed off (at other people, of course).
She's not going anywhere and she's not toning it down, so I just try to pretend she's not there.
If you're going to make the argument that their stance isn't valid because they already broke immigration law I suppose that's fine, but you can't use that stance to say they should be arguing against more immigration.
I realize you would prefer, politically, that current illegal immigrants argue the barn door be closed behind them. But that isn't what they want, and there's no real reason it should be.
It isn't somehow immigrants' fault that they aren't better equipped (as poor laborers) to advocate for their own interest in a democratic society. It doesn't somehow make the argument they may make WRT policy less valid.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
No, it's not their fault that they're poor, but that isn't a rationalization to have the right to demand things from the people you're trespassing against. And it's especially insulting, considering both Mexico's position on people migrating here illegally and their stance on citizenship and property ownership for others entering the country.
To be part of a "democratic society," as you say, you have to play by the rules laid down in that society. It's part of the process. My wife had to do it properly; what makes others more entitled?