PDA

View Full Version : Immigration Reform: Tough to Sell Comprehensively, Maybe A La Carte?



AJBIGJ
11-29-2013, 01:30 PM
Some are very passionate about the need for Immigration Reform, others believe the laws in place are fine, when executed properly...

Which elements appeal most to you? Why?

Is it Border Security? Do you believe the laws in place are insufficient or at least insufficiently executed to properly sustain the sovereignty of our borders? Is such a thing essential, or just a red herring to greater issues?

Is it deportations? Are we doing enough? Are we doing too much?

Is it the state of legality of immigrants? Do they deserve paths to citizenship? Do they deserve an easier means to legal immigrant status?

Which elements appeal most to you, why, and which ones have priority?
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/immigration-reform-la-carte

garhkal
11-29-2013, 08:03 PM
Border security is imo a joke. When we can have cameras on the border 'walls' monitoring everyone and their mother jumping the fences/walls, going through them/under them, or just walking 2-3 miles down the road to where the wall isn't to get by it, and nothing gets done, its imo a pointless exercise. The walls need to be full from one coast to the other, 20-30ft high with 2 separate layers so its harder to break it open, or Don't do it at all.

Deportations - While the 'numbers' are supposedly up, the fact we still have 20-30 MILLION here and growing, shows deportations are not doing enough. Part of this imo falls to the DOJ and White house in their pushing a "no deporting policy" (what it seems to me).

State of legality - Most definitely this is how i see things getting pushed.. What with more and more states giving illegals drivers licenses, id cards, and other programs (even though they are supposed to NOT be eligible for them) its pushing a mantra of "break the law, we don't care"..

Do they Deserve a path to citizenship or legal status. NOPE.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-02-2013, 04:08 PM
What is so troubling for me is the ignorance people seem to have about those coming from Mexico. These people are not coming accross the border of Mexico with doctorates or masters degrees. These people are low skilled workers that are flooding the already overburdened labor pool of no-skilled workers. Do the people of wal-mart, K-mart, Target and other such places really think going on strike because they are being asked to work on Thanksgiving day is going to hurt these companies who will have another 30 million people to hire? And blacks are behind the politicians who really want to leagalize all these low skilled workers when the black community is sitting around 12% unemployment (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/). Maybe the thought is that they will gain in social status if another group of people are brought in with even lower marketable skills than they have? But the point is, the first generation of Mexicans or any other nationality immagrating to America are typically hard workers who will take any job possible to feed their families, and will take the jobs at a lower wage and will be thankful for it.

If there is any one good reason to make these people "legal", I would love for someone to present it. Saying we have 30 million people breaking the law is not a good reason. If 30 million people started driving drunk everyday, would you say the DUI law is broken?

AJBIGJ
12-02-2013, 04:36 PM
If there is any one good reason to make these people "legal", I would love for someone to present it. Saying we have 30 million people breaking the law is not a good reason. If 30 million people started driving drunk everyday, would you say the DUI law is broken?

Me personally I prefer to live in a world where people can go where they want and work where they want, if they are paying the same wage taxes US Citizens pay into then it just lightens the burden for the rest of us (relatively speaking). As long as when they come in they become more of a contributor than a disruption we can only gain by it, and if they prefer the latter they'll wind up incarcerated anyhow. There's a simple caveat to it, they're not doing so as US Citizens but as guests and as such are not entitled to the rights nor the privileges of US Citizenship (voting being among them).

If our citizens aren't occupying the lower wage jobs the immigrants move into, they have very little right to complain that they have no jobs to begin with.

The problem here is not in the immigration system it's the dependency developed by US citizens on the government and becoming essentially wards of the state. Right now there is little incentive to work in low wage labor because, quite frankly, people can actually do better on welfare.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-02-2013, 05:05 PM
Me personally I prefer to live in a world where people can go where they want and work where they want, if they are paying the same wage taxes US Citizens pay into then it just lightens the burden for the rest of us (relatively speaking). As long as when they come in they become more of a contributor than a disruption we can only gain by it, and if they prefer the latter they'll wind up incarcerated anyhow. There's a simple caveat to it, they're not doing so as US Citizens but as guests and as such are not entitled to the rights nor the privileges of US Citizenship (voting being among them).

If our citizens aren't occupying the lower wage jobs the immigrants move into, they have very little right to complain that they have no jobs to begin with.

The problem here is not in the immigration system it's the dependency developed by US citizens on the government and becoming essentially wards of the state. Right now there is little incentive to work in low wage labor because, quite frankly, people can actually do better on welfare.
Agreed, and no one is suggesting that illegals not be allowed welfare if they are legalized. These people are not going to be productive, its a simple fact that their education level and skill sets are not on par with even the lowest skilled worker from American schools.

AJBIGJ
12-02-2013, 05:12 PM
Agreed, and no one is suggesting that illegals not be allowed welfare if they are legalized. These people are not going to be productive, its a simple fact that their education level and skill sets are not on par with even the lowest skilled worker from American schools.

If they are taken into welfare and the ACA then probably so, since we rarely see immigration reform get much movement whatsoever it would be really hard to predict whether that would occur or not.

Bunch
12-02-2013, 05:12 PM
What is so troubling for me is the ignorance people seem to have about those coming from Mexico. These people are not coming accross the border of Mexico with doctorates or masters degrees. These people are low skilled workers that are flooding the already overburdened labor pool of no-skilled workers.

Oh really?!! Like we had many blacks and white people lining up in farms accross America wrestling agains one another to fight for those highly valued farm jobs, or jobs at the local restaurant, or local grocery store, or local hotel, or local construction company. Gimme a break!


Do the people of wal-mart, K-mart, Target and other such places really think going on strike because they are being asked to work on Thanksgiving day is going to hurt these companies who will have another 30 million people to hire?
Uhhh wut!!? And this the fault of whom? So you are placing the blame of companies not willing to pay their employees a living wage on the labor market? How about the companies start showing some level of social resposibility to their employees. God forbid they pay their employees a living wage while their top excutives get paid 5 thousand times more than their average worker. Gimme another break!!


And blacks are behind the politicians who really want to leagalize all these low skilled workers when the black community is sitting around 12% unemployment (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/). Maybe the thought is that they will gain in social status if another group of people are brought in with even lower marketable skills than they have?
I kind of had an idea that race relations is not your strong suit but this comment above not only confirms it but it really makes you look beyond ignorant on the topic.


But the point is, the first generation of Mexicans or any other nationality immagrating to America are typically hard workers who will take any job possible to feed their families, and will take the jobs at a lower wage and will be thankful for it.

At last something thruthful.


If there is any one good reason to make these people "legal", I would love for someone to present it. Saying we have 30 million people breaking the law is not a good reason. If 30 million people started driving drunk everyday, would you say the DUI law is broken?

1. We are a nation of immigrants. We should never forget that.

2. Its a civil rights issue. When speaking strictly about low skilled illegal immigrant workers the USA allowed this to happen. Mainly so the farmers and other industires could pay close to slave wages to many illegal immigrants while having them live in inhuman conditions while companies reaped profits. How we as a country can go around the world and highlight any civil rights issue of any other country when we have a class of citizens we basically no rights at all.

3. Its a national security issue. With immigration reform approved, we will have another pool of people that could serve the country in many capacities: military, intelligence, science and technology. You might not know this but 40% of the people who are here illegally just overstayed their visa. Either students, temporary workers, tourist, athletes, many stay here for the opportunities. Many are highly educated but can't work on their professions due to their illegal status. It will open more economic opportunities for businesses, which means more jobs, more revenue for local, state and federal governments. And on top of that, if we as a country want to survive we needs babies, we need a strong, young, vibrant population. White population by the numbers is on the decline, the african american population as a whole is still trying to find its social footing in this country and who knows how much longer that will that take so a opening a path to citizenship to these group of people that are already here and have proven to be hard workers and of benefit to this society will guarantee the continuity of this country and the great ideas for which this country was founded upon.

Bunch
12-02-2013, 05:27 PM
Me personally I prefer to live in a world where people can go where they want and work where they want, if they are paying the same wage taxes US Citizens pay into then it just lightens the burden for the rest of us (relatively speaking). As long as when they come in they become more of a contributor than a disruption we can only gain by it, and if they prefer the latter they'll wind up incarcerated anyhow. There's a simple caveat to it, they're not doing so as US Citizens but as guests and as such are not entitled to the rights nor the privileges of US Citizenship (voting being among them).

So you want us to become Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Dubai... thats a nice list to be in if you are looking to be in the "countries with worst civil rights" list. What you fail to understand is that this country was founded by immigrants and it will take the blood of immigrants to make sure it continues living as it has, a beacon of democracy and hope and not as an kingdom in which just by having the luck of being born there you get to reap the rewards of your luck instead of becasue you did something to earn your keep.

AJBIGJ
12-02-2013, 05:29 PM
So you want us to become Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Dubai... thats a nice list to be in if you are looking to be in the "countries with worst civil rights" list. What you fail to understand is that this country was founded by immigrants and it will take the blood of immigrants to make sure it continues living as it has, a beacom of democracy and hope and not as an arab kingdom.

I am at a loss of how you interpreted any of this from what you just quoted.

Stalwart
12-02-2013, 05:34 PM
I agree with most of what you said, but just some of my thoughts:


1. We are a nation of immigrants. We should never forget that.

Not so much anymore, we are now (mostly) a nation descended from immigrants.


2. Its a civil rights issue. When speaking strictly about low skilled illegal immigrant workers the USA allowed this to happen. Mainly so the farmers and other industires could pay close to slave wages to many illegal immigrants while having them live in inhuman conditions while companies reaped profits. How we as a country can go around the world and highlight any civil rights issue of any other country when we have a class of citizens we basically no rights at all.

I don't disagree with you on principle, but until people in America are truly willing to also pay the increased cost associated with paying workers (whether at Wal-Mart or in agriculture etc) a higher wage we are not likely to see much change here. The same issue exists with paying larger salaries to fast food workers, the $6 or $7 value meal may not be so enticing if it is going to cost $8 or $9.


3. Its a national security issue. With immigration reform approved, we will have another pool of people that could serve the country in many capacities: military, intelligence, science and technology. You might not know this but 40% of the people who are here illegally just overstayed their visa. Either students, temporary workers, tourist, athletes, many stay here for the opportunities. Many are highly educated but can't work on their professions due to their illegal status. It will open more economic opportunities for businesses, which means more jobs, more revenue for local, state and federal governments. And on top of that, if we as a country want to survive we needs babies, we need a strong, young, vibrant population. White population by the numbers is on the decline, the african american population as a whole is still trying to find its social footing in this country and who knows how much longer that will that take so a opening a path to citizenship to these group of people that are already here and have proven to be hard workers and of benefit to this society will guarantee the continuity of this country and the great ideas for which this country was founded upon.

Many immigrants benefit American society, some don't (some native born U.S. citizens don't benefit our society either.) I think part of the issue is competition. Every time a qualified citizen is passed over in lieu of a qualified immigrant there is concern of the effects that has on the native work force. The issue is finding a balance. I agree there is the ability to open more economic opportunity for business, but if a large influx of immigrant workforce displaces native-born workers can the job creation keep up with the potentially unemployed?

Bunch
12-02-2013, 05:37 PM
I am at a loss of how you interpreted any of this from what you just quoted.


Exactly.

AJBIGJ
12-02-2013, 05:41 PM
Exactly.

Please explain? I'd like to see what the source of your disagreement is, I think we actually agree on this more than we disagree...

AJBIGJ
12-02-2013, 06:11 PM
I agree there is the ability to open more economic opportunity for business, but if a large influx of immigrant workforce displaces native-born workers can the job creation keep up with the potentially unemployed?

I'd say we're mostly in agreement about this here. The answer to your simple question is probably yes it could. I think a good percentage of our immigration does come in as well to get educated or they are at least innovative enough entrepreneurs to successfully start a business, as long as our own laws don't regulate away their ability to pursue their dreams as such. Do we have that now? Probably not, but if Jose or Juanita want to come in, start a business, and pay their employees above average wages to do the work necessary to provide their business's goods and services, I'm of the opinion we should let them. If they happen to perform a little better than an established American business that fails to innovate, I personally think they deserve the competition and the consequences.

garhkal
12-02-2013, 06:53 PM
If there is any one good reason to make these people "legal", I would love for someone to present it. Saying we have 30 million people breaking the law is not a good reason. If 30 million people started driving drunk everyday, would you say the DUI law is broken?

I've used that argument before with others when discussing legalizing immagrants.. Most seem to think its a strawman.


Me personally I prefer to live in a world where people can go where they want and work where they want, if they are paying the same wage taxes US Citizens pay into then it just lightens the burden for the rest of us (relatively speaking). As long as when they come in they become more of a contributor than a disruption we can only gain by it, and if they prefer the latter they'll wind up incarcerated anyhow. There's a simple caveat to it, they're not doing so as US Citizens but as guests and as such are not entitled to the rights nor the privileges of US Citizenship (voting being among them).

Thing is most Don't pay in. They either work under the counter cash jobs, or use false IDs.

AJBIGJ
12-02-2013, 07:02 PM
I've used that argument before with others when discussing legalizing immagrants.. Most seem to think its a strawman.

Thing is most Don't pay in. They either work under the counter cash jobs, or use false IDs.

It depends how their wages are allotted, that's on the business at least partially.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 03:09 AM
I have another viewpoint on this and it is because my wife is a LEGAL Immigrant, I brought her here legally and we went through all the trouble of doing it. We had to pay the fees and do the medical processing. I don't think that people coming here Illegally should get any type of special privileges or considerations, if they are illegal then they should be sent back to their country of origin, no matter how long they have been here. We accept numerous people every single day either through family visas or work visas. So the whole idea that Illegal immigrants should be put in front of the line is crazy. My wife and I have had to shell out over $5000 so far for the fiancé visa and the 3 year conditional green card. She still has to abide by all the rules and laws of this land, Illegals should be like that too.

There are specific migrant visas for immigrants to come here and work legally on farms. When I was 14 my mother made me and my brother work for a farmer friend of hers pickin tobacco with the Mexicans, we had to accept Mexican wages as well. It was hard work but it made me who I am today. So I believe that any company that hires illegal immigrants should be fined a significant amount of money for EVERY person they (INS) find that is here illegally. We have borders for a reason and they should stay like that.

If you want to come here then do it legally. We are the country on earth that accepts more legal people into our borders to live than the rest of the world combined.

garhkal
12-03-2013, 03:30 AM
I have another viewpoint on this and it is because my wife is a LEGAL Immigrant, I brought her here legally and we went through all the trouble of doing it. We had to pay the fees and do the medical processing. I don't think that people coming here Illegally should get any type of special privileges or considerations, if they are illegal then they should be sent back to their country of origin, no matter how long they have been here. We accept numerous people every single day either through family visas or work visas. So the whole idea that Illegal immigrants should be put in front of the line is crazy. My wife and I have had to shell out over $5000 so far for the fiancé visa and the 3 year conditional green card. She still has to abide by all the rules and laws of this land, Illegals should be like that too.


I feel the same. People of all ages, go through the long process and pay out lots of dosh to get here legally, so why should illegals get preferential treatment/??


There are specific migrant visas for immigrants to come here and work legally on farms. When I was 14 my mother made me and my brother work for a farmer friend of hers pickin tobacco with the Mexicans, we had to accept Mexican wages as well. It was hard work but it made me who I am today. So I believe that any company that hires illegal immigrants should be fined a significant amount of money for EVERY person they (INS) find that is here illegally. We have borders for a reason and they should stay like that.


Here here.. Though i feel the ones at the firm/company who DO the hiring should be the ones fined in addition to the company itself.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 03:56 AM
I have another viewpoint on this and it is because my wife is a LEGAL Immigrant, I brought her here legally and we went through all the trouble of doing it. We had to pay the fees and do the medical processing. I don't think that people coming here Illegally should get any type of special privileges or considerations, if they are illegal then they should be sent back to their country of origin, no matter how long they have been here. We accept numerous people every single day either through family visas or work visas. So the whole idea that Illegal immigrants should be put in front of the line is crazy. My wife and I have had to shell out over $5000 so far for the fiancé visa and the 3 year conditional green card. She still has to abide by all the rules and laws of this land, Illegals should be like that too.

There are specific migrant visas for immigrants to come here and work legally on farms. When I was 14 my mother made me and my brother work for a farmer friend of hers pickin tobacco with the Mexicans, we had to accept Mexican wages as well. It was hard work but it made me who I am today. So I believe that any company that hires illegal immigrants should be fined a significant amount of money for EVERY person they (INS) find that is here illegally. We have borders for a reason and they should stay like that.

If you want to come here then do it legally. We are the country on earth that accepts more legal people into our borders to live than the rest of the world combined.

What the heck are "mexican wages"? Is that like bitcoin or something?

Bunch
12-03-2013, 03:59 AM
I feel the same. People of all ages, go through the long process and pay out lots of dosh to get here legally, so why should illegals get preferential treatment/??



Here here.. Though i feel the ones at the firm/company who DO the hiring should be the ones fined in addition to the company itself.

What preferential treatment? You mean having them work 20 hrs a day for 5 pesos!? That's what in conservatives circle pass as preferential treatment? YGTBSM!!

Bunch
12-03-2013, 04:19 AM
Not so much anymore, we are now (mostly) a nation descended from immigrants.

But what's your point? Is the USA some kind of Noah's Ark? We close the doors are no one is allowed to come in anymore? Ok... But what do we do we the ones inside already? We kick them our like many people here are suggesting? Do we keep to torn families apart because this nation decided to curry favors with some morally bankrupt companies and now we just going to kick these people to the curb?


I don't disagree with you on principle, but until people in America are truly willing to also pay the increased cost associated with paying workers (whether at Wal-Mart or in agriculture etc) a higher wage we are not likely to see much change here. The same issue exists with paying larger salaries to fast food workers, the $6 or $7 value meal may not be so enticing if it is going to cost $8 or $9.

The other side of this which is often ignored is that these companies have a social responsibility to the people, mainly to its workers. To pay a living wage to their employess is a decision that many multinationals have all but ignored, I guess they don't teach social responsibility at MBA's schools any longer. Is all about the profit, and the jet, and the luxury... Morally bankrupted capitalism at it's finest.



Many immigrants benefit American society, some don't (some native born U.S. citizens don't benefit our society either.) I think part of the issue is competition. Every time a qualified citizen is passed over in lieu of a qualified immigrant there is concern of the effects that has on the native work force. The issue is finding a balance. I agree there is the ability to open more economic opportunity for business, but if a large influx of immigrant workforce displaces native-born workers can the job creation keep up with the potentially unemployed?

We can think about this moving foward but it does nothing to resolve the issue at hand.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 04:20 AM
What the heck are "mexican wages"? Is that like bitcoin or something?

I am sorry your not used to that phrase. But farmers my mother went to would not hire us due to that she wanted minimum wage ($5.15), they said that was too much. The Migrant workers usually only get around $2 an hour. The majority of migrant workers are Mexicans. I am sorry you are too ignorant to know this.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 04:27 AM
I am sorry your not used to that phrase. But farmers my mother went to would not hire us due to that she wanted minimum wage ($5.15), they said that was too much. The Migrant workers usually only get around $2 an hour. The majority of migrant workers are Mexicans. I am sorry you are too ignorant to know this.

Ignorant is calling them "mexican wages" the correct term is "slave wages" paid by morally bankrupted farmers. In your ignorance you trying to make it sound like this people who are being taken advantage of on a daily basis are asking their "masters" to be paid that kind of money. You need to understand that they dont have a choice in the matter.

And please let me know if you are going to start with the name calling. Your childish rants and antics around here are getting kind of old.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 04:35 AM
But what's your point? Is the USA some kind of Noah's Ark? We close the doors are no one is allow to come in anymore? Ok... But what do we do we the ones inside already? We kick them our like many people here are suggesting? Do we keep to torn families apart because this nation decided to curry favors with some morally bankrupt companies and now we just going to kick these people to the curb?

Now you are just plainly acting stupid. We have NEVER closed the doors at all. We have always allowed people to come here LEGALLY. We need to make sure that the borders are shut tight so that people don't come here illegally. Hell I am for putting drones with guns on the border and killing those that come across illegally.

What you are advocating is that people just let the people that are illegally disobeying our laws just go with automatic green cards or citizenship. I believe that people who are here illegally should have to pay a fine and WORK to achieve a green card, if you violate the law then you are deported end of story. That's what people who come here legally have to worry about as well. If my wife commits a offense involving murder, assault, drugs or robbery. Then after she has paid her debt to society then she will be deported. So why can't that happen to those that here illegally or want to work towards a green card?



The other side of this which is often ignored is that this companies have a social responsibility to the people, mainly to its workers. To pay a living wage to their employess is a decision that many multinationals have all but ignored, I guess they don't teach social responsibility at MBA's schools any longer. Is all about the profit, and the jet, and the luxury... Morally bankrupted capitalism at it's finest.

You are the type of person that wants companies to be moral and be socially responsible, but yet you bitch when they try and get out of Obamacare for violating their principles. It's either one or the other, you can't have both. I honestly don't believe that ALL companies have to pay a living wage at all. I have worked my way up since getting out of the Marine Corps job wise, and now I am working on my Bachelors. I feel NO type of sympathy or empathy for those fast food or walmart workers that complain about their wages. If you don't like the wages then get a new job, get a new set of skills. You have to work toward it and not just slouch around.
When I was at my last duty station in the Marines, I was able to work at the PX on base as a second job. I worked my ass off making sure to provide for my family as I saw fit. So I understand about doing that and working hard to achieve what I want. I am now working a full time job and going back to school at night. I do this to push myself and achieve greater.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 04:41 AM
Ignorant is calling them "mexican wages" the correct term is "slave wages" paid by morally bankrupted farmers. In your ignorance you trying to make it sound like this people who are being taken advantage of on a daily basis are asking their "masters" to be paid that kind of money. You need to understand that they dont have a choice in the matter.
And please let me know if you are going to start with the name calling. Your childish rants and antics around here are getting kind of old.

I am sorry but I don't do childish rants or antics around here. I call it as I see it. Just because you think farmers are morally bankrupt proves how ignorant you are. The majority of farmers are proud hard working and God fearing people. Their profit margins are razor thin in a good year, let alone a bad year. So I am sorry you are opposed to someone getting ahead in life.
Farmers have been paying those kind of wages for a long time now. You want everyone to believe in your classism and how everyone is treated badly here in America. Why don't you go and see how migrant workers are treated in other countries such as the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar. The migrant workers here are treated a hell of a lot better than they are treated there. The majority of migrant workers here in the USA actually come back year after year to the same farmer (on their own doing) so that they can provide for their families back at home. What you consider to be "slave wages" actually are very good compared to what they can make back at home.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 04:48 AM
What preferential treatment? You mean having them work 20 hrs a day for 5 pesos!? That's what in conservatives circle pass as preferential treatment? YGTBSM!!

What you and the majority of the Democrats want is for everyone to be on the same level everywhere, but then set yourselves above everyone else. Make a law for the public, but make sure that Congress is exempt from it. You know what other kind of system does this? Communism... It was sold as an idea that everyone is equal in society and there is levels. Everyone is a "Comrade". But in reality it was another form of the feudal system.

What conservatives like me believe is that EVERYONE has potential to do ANYTHING that they want to do, as long as you work hard to achieve your goals. That's what America was founded upon and that's why people come from all over the world to live here, because if you work hard then you can achieve your goals.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 04:53 AM
Now you are just plainly acting stupid.
I'm not acting stupid, I will never take that job away from you.


We have NEVER closed the doors at all. We have always allowed people to come here LEGALLY. We need to make sure that the borders are shut tight so that people don't come here illegally.

Who disagrees with this?


Hell I am for putting drones with guns on the border and killing those that come across illegally.

Spoken like a true conservative gun nut.


What you are advocating is that people just let the people that are illegally disobeying our laws just go with automatic green cards or citizenship.
Path to citizenship. First earn your keep, then green card, then citizenship.


I believe that people who are here illegally should have to pay a fine and WORK to achieve a green card, if you violate the law then you are deported end of story. That's what people who come here legally have to worry about as well. If my wife commits a offense involving murder, assault, drugs or robbery. Then after she has paid her debt to society then she will be deported. So why can't that happen to those that here illegally or want to work towards a green card?

I agree with this.



You are the type of person that wants companies to be moral and be socially responsible, but yet you bitch when they try and get out of Obamacare for violating their principles.
I've been on the record many times here that I don't like Obamacare. Stop pulling shit out of your ass when trying to make your point.


I honestly don't believe that ALL companies have to pay a living wage at all.
Classic conservative economic principle. People should get 4 jobs.


I have worked my way up since getting out of the Marine Corps job wise, and now I am working on my Bachelors. I feel NO type of sympathy or empathy for those fast food or walmart workers that complain about their wages. If you don't like the wages then get a new job, get a new set of skills. You have to work toward it and not just slouch around.
When I was at my last duty station in the Marines, I was able to work at the PX on base as a second job. I worked my ass off making sure to provide for my family as I saw fit. So I understand about doing that and working hard to achieve what I want. I am now working a full time job and going back to school at night. I do this to push myself and achieve greater.

Who is against any of what you said? I congratulate and admire your motivation and desire to prosper and hopefully when you finish your school and get a job you receive a wage that allows you to enjoy life with your family.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 04:59 AM
I am sorry but I don't do childish rants or antics around here. I call it as I see it. Just because you think farmers are morally bankrupt proves how ignorant you are. The majority of farmers are proud hard working and God fearing people. Their profit margins are razor thin in a good year, let alone a bad year. So I am sorry you are opposed to someone getting ahead in life.
Farmers have been paying those kind of wages for a long time now.You want everyone to believe in your classism and how everyone is treated badly here in America. Why don't you go and see how migrant workers are treated in other countries such as the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar. The migrant workers here are treated a hell of a lot better than they are treated there. The majority of migrant workers here in the USA actually come back year after year to the same farmer (on their own doing) so that they can provide for their families back at home. What you consider to be "slave wages" actually are very good compared to what they can make back at home.

Thank you for proving my point.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 05:03 AM
You brought the topic on that companies should be morally responsible not me. So I just said what I thought on that subject.

I am just a little ticked with the whole immigration reform in general and I agree with you on that. I believe that the original ideas from the gang of 8 this past year were great. That illegals should pay a fine, get a work visa and go to the back of the line for a green card, then after a time period (12 years) then and only then can you apply for citizenship. But some Democrats and illegal rights groups said that wasn't good enough. That they should be at the front of the line, in front of those that came here legally. I live here in California trust me I saw and heard all of that everyday.

I don't believe that ANYONE should get 4 jobs. I am just saying that if you set goals and work hard enough then you can achieve them. What I don't like is that people want or should get everything handed to them no matter what with no work involved. I absolutely can't stand people like that. I have someone in my class that has 3 kids, works 2 jobs, and goes to school with me. Big ups to her and I support her 100%. She is not standing idling by complaining about bs. She is taking the bull by the horns and doing the damn thing.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 05:05 AM
What you and the majority of the Democrats want is for everyone to be on the same level everywhere, but then set yourselves above everyone else. Make a law for the public, but make sure that Congress is exempt from it. You know what other kind of system does this? Communism... It was sold as an idea that everyone is equal in society and there is levels. Everyone is a "Comrade". But in reality it was another form of the feudal system.

What conservatives like me believe is that EVERYONE has potential to do ANYTHING that they want to do, as long as you work hard to achieve your goals. That's what America was founded upon and that's why people come from all over the world to live here, because if you work hard then you can achieve your goals.

The fuck you know what I want? I dont even know that myself?!! I do know that something needs to be done about the illegal immigrant that are here. Give them a path to citizenship while at the same time we secure the border.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 05:10 AM
I do know that something needs to be done about the illegal immigrant that are here. Give them a path to citizenship while at the same time we secure the border.

I firmly agree with you on that as well. But I am not about putting them at the front of the line to those that came here legally. There are far to many people in this country that cater to and support illegal aliens. Look how many sanctuary cities there are and you can tell that. Here in LA if you are illegal and are driving without a license, they can't/won't take the vehicle from you because that is causing "undue harshness to the illegal". While let someone like me or you drive without insurance or a license and we will get our vehicle towed and cited, if not in jail in some states.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 05:15 AM
I am just a little ticked with the whole immigration reform in general and I agree with you on that. I believe that the original ideas from the gang of 8 this past year were great. That illegals should pay a fine, get a work visa and go to the back of the line for a green card, then after a time period (12 years) then and only then can you apply for citizenship. But some Democrats and illegal rights groups said that wasn't good enough. That they should be at the front of the line, in front of those that came here legally. I live here in California trust me I saw and heard all of that everyday.
Don't listen to our crazies. Any common sense liberal/progressive will understand that this immigration deal can't be blanket ammnesty. It just can't, not because republicans won't allow it but just because is not right for the country. Is not right for the people like you and your wife, is not right because the message it sends, is not right because it could lead to fraud, is not right because of security issues among many other issues.


I don't believe that ANYONE should get 4 jobs. I am just saying that if you set goals and work hard enough then you can achieve them. What I don't like is that people want or should get everything handed to them no matter what with no work involved. I absolutely can't stand people like that. I have someone in my class that has 3 kids, works 2 jobs, and goes to school with me. Big ups to her and I support her 100%. She is not standing idling by complaining about bs. She is taking the bull by the horns and doing the damn thing.
I agree with this also. I agree on working hard while at the same time demanding companies to do whats right for their employees.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 05:35 AM
I firmly agree with you on that as well. But I am not about putting them at the front of the line to those that came here legally. There are far to many people in this country that cater to and support illegal aliens. Look how many sanctuary cities there are and you can tell that. Here in LA if you are illegal and are driving without a license, they can't/won't take the vehicle from you because that is causing "undue harshness to the illegal". While let someone like me or you drive without insurance or a license and we will get our vehicle towed and cited, if not in jail in some states.

I understand your frustration and its completely normal to be frustrated and angered by the illegal immigrants situation. It has disrupted many communities, cities and even states across the US. But this problem was one caused by necessity at best or greed at worst and I'm not talking about those who were coming into the country. Now they are here and we have to deal with that.

I just truly want for once to see if the rhetoric could be kept at a minimum on this issue and deal with substance. Because this issue affects everyone of us on a personal level no matter on what branch of the political tree you are on. If affects our families, our friends, our coworkers, our communities, our children schools, our economy, our national security... it touches everything. The last time we ended up debating an issue so relevant to our lives we ended up with the clusterfuck known as Obamacare and I think we can all agree we don't want something like that to happen again.

Stalwart
12-03-2013, 09:53 AM
But what's your point? Is the USA some kind of Noah's Ark? We close the doors are no one is allowed to come in anymore? Ok... But what do we do we the ones inside already?

My point is that simply most people here are not immigrants, but most people are descended from immigrants. This has not always been the case but the percentage of immigrants in our population is smaller than it has been in the past.

My grandfather was an immigrant, my father was born in the U.S. and didn't really identify himself much with my grandfather's home nation, I don't either. I understand that many cultures look at that heritage more prominently than others. But, the vast majority of people here are descended from immigrants most people in the U.S. were born in the U.S. I don't think we should slam the doors shut and say "no more" but I also don't think we should throw open the doors and say "come one come all." For those already here, that is a very hard call. I am not for breaking apart a family, and I hate to read stories of those who come here illegally with their parents and live here for years then find themselves unable to find work or attend college based on their immigration status -- at the same time, is it right to give them a job or take them in a school vice the son/daughter of a legal resident or citizen? If you do, does that create a mentality of "break the rules if it will get you ahead?" Either way, you will be crushing someone's opportunity or dream, it is a hard call. My opinion: I don't think people who are here illegally should be put ahead in line of those who immigrated here legally, but I think we need to take a hard look at what we do with those already here who want to stay.


The other side of this which is often ignored is that these companies have a social responsibility to the people, mainly to its workers. To pay a living wage to their employees is a decision that many multinationals have all but ignored, I guess they don't teach social responsibility at MBA's schools any longer. Is all about the profit, and the jet, and the luxury... Morally bankrupted capitalism at it's finest.

I don't disagree, I am just saying that to generate the revenue to pay those wages the company would have to raise costs. Yes, in large companies reducing pay of the higher wage earners (likely a small percentage of the company) will free up money in company coffers and a balance could be struck. Big/large companies can do this easiest while smaller companies with a smaller profit margin would have a harder time with this and would be disproportionally impacted. I don't think people should be paid substandard wages, do think a balance has to be found between wages and business. Over half of the working population in the U.S. is employed by small businesses with those smaller profit margins.

-A community-based pizza parlor is selling 100 pies/drinks a day for 360 days at $10 each. Total revenue is $360,000. It employs 10 minimum wage workers earning $7 per hour, working 2000 hours a year (just under 38.5 hours per week), making labor costs $140,000
-However, rent, utilities, equipment, depreciation, insurance, supplies, licenses, and food costs come to $170,000 per year, leaving a profit of $50,000 for the owner and his/her family
-Raising the minimum wage $1 would raise labor costs by $20,000 and reduce profit to $30,000
-The owner must either move into a smaller house or raise prices, which reduces the demand for pizza, which means less work for the restaurant, resulting in the loss of a worker
-So, the full increase in the wage cost of an increase in the minimum wage comes out of the pockets of customers or the owner’s family, and the one person who loses a job


With permanent immigration running at around a million persons per year and guest worker migration at record levels, the nation’s employment needs are currently being met without the entry of new undocumented migrants. If temporary worker entries continue to rise as they have in recent decades, undocumented migration is unlikely to resume even if labor demand increases. The most recent estimate I saw showed that about 80% of illegal immigration is from Mexico & Central America. Given demographic deceleration in Mexico, growing economies throughout Latin America, and expanded opportunities for temporary migration, the great boom in Mexican migration is likely over. The biggest problem facing the United States now is what to do with the population of 11 million people currently living outside the law. A third of all foreigners in the United States are undocumented. Among all Latinos present in the country today, 20 percent are undocumented and an even larger share live in households containing an unauthorized migrant, thus rendering this group uniquely exploitable and susceptible to economic dislocations. When one adds in the rapidly expanding number of temporary workers—people who lack freedom of mobility and labor rights -- the singular vulnerability of this population is readily apparent and must be addressed to prevent both the moral ambiguity of their status and the economic impact this will have on the future of the U.S. economy.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 01:29 PM
I'm seeing a lot of comments about not moving undocumented immigrants to the "front of the line". I would comment the major issues we have today are mostly due to the fact that those immigrants are not in the line at all.

Part of the reason I personally reject the idea of blanket citizenship (which I think most of us have in common) is that it is entirely possible for someone to want to visit while not claiming US Citizenship. That's probably fairly obvious to most but that does not mean it's unimportant.

I think for any sort of "reform" to work we have to make the distinction in our own minds between non-citizen immigrants and immigrants seeking citizenship. One would think such a thing is fairly self-evident but I often do see people making arguments against one which are more appropriate to the other and vice versa. It really shouldn't be that big a deal when we make the distinction between natural rights of personhood and the rights derived by contract through US Citizenship. I think much of the confusion has to do with the allotment of entitlements towards citizens vs. immigrants. I'll put aside for the moment my own feelings towards entitlements, but it should be fairly straightforward that it is not an American taxpayer's responsibility to subsidize an individual with whom no contract of citizenship exists.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 03:37 PM
Oh really?!! Like we had many blacks and white people lining up in farms accross America wrestling agains one another to fight for those highly valued farm jobs, or jobs at the local restaurant, or local grocery store, or local hotel, or local construction company. Gimme a break!Exactly my point. Too many people in America have an entitlement mentality and think these jobs are beneath them, mainly because you can recieve government handouts and "make more" than those jobs provide. Cut off the government handouts and watch people (white and black) go running for those jobs.


Uhhh wut!!? And this the fault of whom? So you are placing the blame of companies not willing to pay their employees a living wage on the labor market? How about the companies start showing some level of social resposibility to their employees. God forbid they pay their employees a living wage while their top excutives get paid 5 thousand times more than their average worker. Gimme another break!!What is this "social responsibility" you speak of? The myth of a livable wage is funny because the money it costs to buy stuff goes up due to the keynes theory of printing more money. And yes, $15k for a min wage job is liveable, as long as you are not a spoiled brat who thinks you need a house to yourself, smart phone, new car, and lobster or steak to eat. $15k is easy if you budget and be smart about your money. Plus, these are entry level jobs for high schoolers with no experience, you want better pay, go get some marketable skills. And yes, the labor market is more than responsible for the low wages because it is a resource just like everything else. We are just replenishing this resource more than anyother in the US. The exects get paid what they are worth, jsut like the cashier. Bad exects not friends with government have their companies go out of business and never get hired for that job again. Steve Jobs is the prime example of what a good exect can do for a company. If you dont like the exect policy or salary of a company, you can always just not shop there.


I kind of had an idea that race relations is not your strong suit but this comment above not only confirms it but it really makes you look beyond ignorant on the topic.
Riiiight. Cause having 30 million new people in the low end market pool isnt going to hurt the poor even more. You have even more people filling less jobs in an economy where we are stagnant. But you dont see blacks being hurt the most when these people come in to the low skilled working pool? Lets be honest, behind latinos, which race drops out of school the most and has the largest population of low skilled workers?


At last something thruthful.Everything else is too. The point is, the second generations are Americanized and will be in the same boat as the rest of the poor. Like libs love to say, you can only succeed if your parents are wealthy, and thats why many minorities are still in poverty as a collective. Do you really believe 12 million mexicans will have their kids in private schools and going to universities on 4 minimum wage jobs through your line of thinking? According to libs, the poor stay poor because they dont have the opportunity to succeed as the rich. Even raising the min wage to $15/hr, they will still be poor because there will ALWAYS be "poor" people. You cant tax the rich and give to the poor enough to ever get out this by government force. Only through individual hard work and percervience can someone leave the poverty thresh hold. Redistrobution is like having 10 women vote on who the prettiest in the room is, and then slashing her face up to make her less pretty. But now there is a new "Prettiest", and a new vote, and another woman gets slashed. And it keeps going on until they are all slashed up and all in pain.


1. We are a nation of immigrants. We should never forget that.Yes, legally. If mexico wants a war and take over what we built up and make it better, lets do this thang. Natives died, and I am appauled by the actions of earliest settlers. But you have to admit, the country was built and made better than the Native Americans had ever dreamed of doing. Yes, there are negatives, but there are plenty of positives. We can go back to the time of no cell phones or computers or cars, but we also go back to no cancer treatment, pollio, small pox, penicilin etc.


2. Its a civil rights issue. When speaking strictly about low skilled illegal immigrant workers the USA allowed this to happen. Mainly so the farmers and other industires could pay close to slave wages to many illegal immigrants while having them live in inhuman conditions while companies reaped profits. How we as a country can go around the world and highlight any civil rights issue of any other country when we have a class of citizens we basically no rights at all.They are NOT citizens, thats the point. If its worse here than in Mexico, why do they still come here? If you are an illegal in Mexico, the treatment is far worse than what is recieved here. Our treatment of illegals is far superior than any latin American country. Dont try to pull the sympathy card here, it wont work with someone that isnt ignorant of how the rest of the world works. How were those travelers that accidently crossed the boarder to Iran treated?


3. Its a national security issue. With immigration reform approved, we will have another pool of people that could serve the country in many capacities: military, intelligence, science and technology. You might not know this but 40% of the people who are here illegally just overstayed their visa. Either students, temporary workers, tourist, athletes, many stay here for the opportunities. Many are highly educated but can't work on their professions due to their illegal status. It will open more economic opportunities for businesses, which means more jobs, more revenue for local, state and federal governments. And on top of that, if we as a country want to survive we needs babies, we need a strong, young, vibrant population. White population by the numbers is on the decline, the african american population as a whole is still trying to find its social footing in this country and who knows how much longer that will that take so a opening a path to citizenship to these group of people that are already here and have proven to be hard workers and of benefit to this society will guarantee the continuity of this country and the great ideas for which this country was founded upon.Many of those 40% are whites from Europe, but please go on... And dont forget, those that over stayed their visas crashed planes into the twin towers, pentagon, and bombed the Boston Marathon. But please, show me how legallizing these people would be best for national security. Not to mention a lot of those that are part of the 60% are drug cartels and rapist and murderers and people who get countless DUIs but are just deported, some with more guns then they came with thanks to Fast and Furious. As far as those 40% of over stayed visas, do you have an actual number of them that actually finished their degrees or are you just speculating?

More for the military pool? Are you kidding me? We are already downsizing the military and you want more people to be grunts? Not to mention service in the military makes it easier to obtain citizenship already and we do recruit from around the world. But they still need to pass a background check. Being a citizen doesnt mean there is a backround check, especially when amnesty is introduced.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 03:40 PM
My point is that simply most people here are not immigrants, but most people are descended from immigrants. This has not always been the case but the percentage of immigrants in our population is smaller than it has been in the past.
I still don't see how this is relevant to the conversation. In my view everyone here has benefited from immigration and thats the larger point I was making.


My grandfather was an immigrant, my father was born in the U.S. and didn't really identify himself much with my grandfather's home nation, I don't either. I understand that many cultures look at that heritage more prominently than others. But, the vast majority of people here are descended from immigrants most people in the U.S. were born in the U.S. I don't think we should slam the doors shut and say "no more" but I also don't think we should throw open the doors and say "come one come all."
I just dont understand your thinking. This land, the of USA, didn't belong to anyone, if anything to the natives that were massacered and displaced during the colonization period. You are here because your family benefited from immigration and you identify yourself with this country that is all you ever known and I understand. I'm just getting this feeling from you of "us" vs "them" that I can't really follow.



For those already here, that is a very hard call. I am not for breaking apart a family, and I hate to read stories of those who come here illegally with their parents and live here for years then find themselves unable to find work or attend college based on their immigration status -- at the same time, is it right to give them a job or take them in a school vice the son/daughter of a legal resident or citizen? If you do, does that create a mentality of "break the rules if it will get you ahead?" Either way, you will be crushing someone's opportunity or dream, it is a hard call. My opinion: I don't think people who are here illegally should be put ahead in line of those who immigrated here legally, but I think we need to take a hard look at what we do with those already here who want to stay.

Again the "us vs "them" theme. Are you for what others here have mention which is to create a permanent class of secondary citizens lets called them "permanent immigrants" where they get to work and live here but they don't get any other benefits reserved for the nobility ranks of "citizens". Because look at the middle east and see hows that working out in countries that follow such a route, look at Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia and other countries that have those type of systems in place and see what happens.


I don't disagree, I am just saying that to generate the revenue to pay those wages the company would have to raise costs. Yes, in large companies reducing pay of the higher wage earners (likely a small percentage of the company) will free up money in company coffers and a balance could be struck. Big/large companies can do this easiest while smaller companies with a smaller profit margin would have a harder time with this and would be disproportionally impacted. I don't think people should be paid substandard wages, do think a balance has to be found between wages and business. Over half of the working population in the U.S. is employed by small businesses with those smaller profit margins.

-A community-based pizza parlor is selling 100 pies/drinks a day for 360 days at $10 each. Total revenue is $360,000. It employs 10 minimum wage workers earning $7 per hour, working 2000 hours a year (just under 38.5 hours per week), making labor costs $140,000
-However, rent, utilities, equipment, depreciation, insurance, supplies, licenses, and food costs come to $170,000 per year, leaving a profit of $50,000 for the owner and his/her family
-Raising the minimum wage $1 would raise labor costs by $20,000 and reduce profit to $30,000
-The owner must either move into a smaller house or raise prices, which reduces the demand for pizza, which means less work for the restaurant, resulting in the loss of a worker
-So, the full increase in the wage cost of an increase in the minimum wage comes out of the pockets of customers or the owner’s family, and the one person who loses a job


But you seem to think that paying a living wage will hapen in a vacuum with no other consequences to the larger economy. I give you this example, lets say Walmart do an about face and say that it will offer their employees full time positions and start paying them $12hr and they are doing it by finding efficiencies in their processes, reducing its profit margin, reducing its cash balance, slashing dividends. Basically Walmart will eat all the cost of raising employee pay without no adverse effect to their pricing strategy. What do you think the impact of such a move will be for the larger economy? Thats an extra 5 to 6 thousands per every Walmart employee which last I heard is around 1.4 million, dont you think a company that consistently has quaterly revenues of north of a 100 billion can find a way to ID 8.4 billion dollars for their employees? The easy thing for Walmart is to wait for the governments to force them to do it so they can blame government for having to raise prices while keeping their profits intact and in many cases growing even more.


With permanent immigration running at around a million persons per year and guest worker migration at record levels, the nation’s employment needs are currently being met without the entry of new undocumented migrants. If temporary worker entries continue to rise as they have in recent decades, undocumented migration is unlikely to resume even if labor demand increases. The most recent estimate I saw showed that about 80% of illegal immigration is from Mexico & Central America. Given demographic deceleration in Mexico, growing economies throughout Latin America, and expanded opportunities for temporary migration, the great boom in Mexican migration is likely over. The biggest problem facing the United States now is what to do with the population of 11 million people currently living outside the law. A third of all foreigners in the United States are undocumented. Among all Latinos present in the country today, 20 percent are undocumented and an even larger share live in households containing an unauthorized migrant, thus rendering this group uniquely exploitable and susceptible to economic dislocations. When one adds in the rapidly expanding number of temporary workers—people who lack freedom of mobility and labor rights -- the singular vulnerability of this population is readily apparent and must be addressed to prevent both the moral ambiguity of their status and the economic impact this will have on the future of the U.S. economy.

And this is what we need to deal with right now.

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 03:41 PM
And yes, $15k for a min wage job is liveable, as long as you are not a spoiled brat who thinks you need a house to yourself, smart phone, new car, and lobster or steak to eat. $15k is easy if you budget and be smart about your money.

Spoken like someone who has never had to do it. And you can spare me your stories about knowing someone who did it.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 03:53 PM
I still don't see how this is relevant to the conversation. In my view everyone here has benefited from immigration and thats the larger point I was making.

If I read correctly, it's a question of nationality and how one identifies themself. Someone who immigrates immigrated from somewhere (obviously) and thus would at least partially identify themselves with that heritage. Someone born inside this country would generally not identify with that nation in the same such fashion, they would identify themselves as purely American. Thus the point I got from it is that they are descended from immigrants, but not technically immigrants themselves. It's really a point of mere technicality more than anything else.

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 03:59 PM
If I read correctly, it's a question of nationality and how one identifies themself. Someone who immigrates immigrated from somewhere (obviously) and thus would at least partially identify themselves with that heritage. Someone born inside this country would generally not identify with that nation in the same such fashion, they would identify themselves as purely American. Thus the point I got from it is that they are descended from immigrants, but not technically immigrants themselves. It's really a point of mere technicality more than anything else.

"Ethnicity" might be the word you're looking for. The US is not a "nation state," or one where it's citizens are mostly considered to be the same ethnic group. I.e., there's no "American" ethnicity.

Which is strange, because... countries in Latin America have eventually become nation states over the years after gaining independence from Spain and Portugal.

Stalwart
12-03-2013, 04:05 PM
I still don't see how this is relevant to the conversation. In my view everyone here has benefited from immigration and thats the larger point I was making.

I get that, and I won't argue that I (and most of the nation has) benefited from immigration. Maybe it is just the semantics of the words but I just think that the statement of "The U.S. is a nation of immigrants" is not a valid statement any longer. I have an opinion that if we stop worrying as much about (literally and abstractly) 'where we came from' and concentrated on 'where we are' we could solve a number of problems in the U.S. today.


I just dont understand your thinking. This land, the of USA, didn't belong to anyone, if anything to the natives that were massacered and displaced during the colonization period.

I agree, and while that part of history is tragic to apply a 21st century morality lens to something that happened 500, 300, 200 etc. years ago does not work. It was tragic -- but there isn't much that we can do about that now.


I'm just getting this feeling from you of "us" vs "them" that I can't really follow.

That is definitely not my sentiment nor my intent.


Are you for what others here have mention which is to create a permanent class of secondary citizens lets called them "permanent immigrants" where they get to work and live here but they don't get any other benefits reserved for the nobility ranks of "citizens".

Absolutely not. At the same time, I think there is a necessity to ensure that there are jobs for those that are here legally (citizens and immigrants). From a question of legality, a citizen does enjoy certain protections that an immigrant does not. There are rights that are and should be afforded to immigrants who are here legally. A question with both a legal and moral aspect is what rights are there legally for someone who is here illegally (I don't mean basic human rights, but things like financial aid, optional medical care, educational benefits etc.?)


But you seem to think that paying a living wage will hapen in a vacuum with no other consequences to the larger economy. I give you this example, lets say Walmart do an about face and say that it will offer their employees full time positions and start paying them $12hr and they are doing it by finding efficiencies in their processes, reducing its profit margin, reducing its cash balance, slashing dividends. Basically Walmart will eat all the cost of raising employee pay without no adverse effect to their pricing strategy. What do you think the impact of such a move will be for the larger economy? Thats an extra 5 to 6 thousands per every Walmart employee which last I heard is around 1.4 million, dont you think a company that consistently has quaterly revenues of north of a 100 billion can find a way to ID 8.4 billion dollars for their employees? The easy thing for Walmart is to wait for the governments to force them to do it so they can blame government for having to raise prices while keeping their profits intact and in many cases growing even more.

I don't think any example would happen in a vacuum & I agree that the pay gap between the average worker and CEO is disproportionally HUGE. Could Wal-Mart do it --- most likely. I just don't think small businesses (who employ the majority of the country and whose owners/operators take a large amount of personal risk) can as easily apply the same method and not have it adversely impact their businesses.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 04:06 PM
"Ethnicity" might be the word you're looking for. The US is not a "nation state," or one where it's citizens are mostly considered to be the same ethnic group. I.e., there's no "American" ethnicity.

Which is strange, because... countries in Latin America have eventually become nation states over the years after gaining independence from Spain and Portugal.

Sort of yes and sort of no, it's kind of a conglomeration of ethnicity and nationality which is really more complex than either. It would make a truly interesting conversation (but long) to discuss what drives an individual to self-identify a certain way when it comes to both nationality and heritage.

Stalwart
12-03-2013, 04:09 PM
If I read correctly, it's a question of nationality and how one identifies themself. Someone who immigrates immigrated from somewhere (obviously) and thus would at least partially identify themselves with that heritage. Someone born inside this country would generally not identify with that nation in the same such fashion, they would identify themselves as purely American. Thus the point I got from it is that they are descended from immigrants, but not technically immigrants themselves. It's really a point of mere technicality more than anything else.

yeah ... that.

Stalwart
12-03-2013, 04:13 PM
"Ethnicity" might be the word you're looking for. The US is not a "nation state," or one where it's citizens are mostly considered to be the same ethnic group. I.e., there's no "American" ethnicity.

Which is strange, because... countries in Latin America have eventually become nation states over the years after gaining independence from Spain and Portugal.

We are adopting from China right now, and have learned a lot about China in the 4 years we have been in the process. I have been surprised to learn that in a country as populace and large as China they do have a many variances in culture, language etc. that to us in the West may seem minor but to the Chinese are major. The same applies to when they learn about the U.S., to us the differences between the culture etc. in someone from the Bronx and from Biloxi may be huge but to those from China are not nearly as noticable.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 04:22 PM
We are adopting from China right now, and have learned a lot about China in the 4 years we have been in the process. I have surprised to learn that in a country as populace and large as China they do have a many variances in culture, language etc. that to us in the West may seem minor but to the Chinese are major. The same applies to when they learn about the U.S., to us the differences between the culture etc. in someone from the Bronx and from Biloxi may be huge but to those from China are not nearly as noticable.

I think that tends to be true in almost any area of the world for anyone who does not live there themselves. I remember from my deployment where I had the opportunity to visit a whole slew of West-Central African countries over by the Gulf of Guinea. I doubt a layman American would be able to conceive of there being much difference between Angola, Ghana, and Gabon; but to see it in person the differences are stark indeed.

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 04:23 PM
Sort of yes and sort of no, it's kind of a conglomeration of ethnicity and nationality which is really more complex than either. It would make a truly interesting conversation (but long) to discuss what drives an individual to self-identify a certain way when it comes to both nationality and heritage.

That's the thing - because we're not a nation state, there's no "American" ethnicity to refer to. So, that forces one to resort to what their "heritage" is.

To demonstrate what I'm talking about; someone says that they're half white and half Mexican. Why don't they say they're half American? Because... "American" isn't an ethnicity.

Why has the US not become a nation state, like the rest of the New World?

It actually had a lot to do with how these countries handled the newly freed slaves after their respective emancipations. In the US, it was Jim Crow. Segregation. Everyone stays in their place, and they develop their own identities. The one-drop rule ensured that there'd be no "bridge," and maintained purity among whites.

In Latin American countries, the idea was to eliminate blacks by absorbing them. You have a child with a black person, that mulatto child then has a child with a white person; and so forth... and by the time you have an octaroon (sometimes even at quadroon), they look like just another white person. This wasn't 100% achieved, but black identity was highly discouraged and everyone identified with the mainstream - hence how they became nation states.

The US, as it stands right now, is beyond both scenarios... and will never be a nation state. It's just not going to happen.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 04:31 PM
Exactly my point. Too many people in America have an entitlement mentality and think these jobs are beneath them, mainly because you can recieve government handouts and "make more" than those jobs provide. Cut off the government handouts and watch people (white and black) go running for those jobs.

I don't think even is the food stamps are cut you are going to see many people (white or black) lining up for farm jobs, or for dishwashing positions, or other such jobs. As nonsensical as this might sound for many people is not a "money" issue is more of a "pride" issue when it comes to doing this jobs, it is utter nonsense but sometimes that's how many people think.


What is this "social responsibility" you speak of? The myth of a livable wage is funny because the money it costs to buy stuff goes up due to the keynes theory of printing more money. And yes, $15k for a min wage job is liveable, as long as you are not a spoiled brat who thinks you need a house to yourself, smart phone, new car, and lobster or steak to eat. $15k is easy if you budget and be smart about your money. Plus, these are entry level jobs for high schoolers with no experience, you want better pay, go get some marketable skills. And yes, the labor market is more than responsible for the low wages because it is a resource just like everything else. We are just replenishing this resource more than anyother in the US. The exects get paid what they are worth, jsut like the cashier. Bad exects not friends with government have their companies go out of business and never get hired for that job again. Steve Jobs is the prime example of what a good exect can do for a company. If you dont like the exect policy or salary of a company, you can always just not shop there.

The myth of a living wage is not funny, is quite sad actually. Show me a typical family of 4 in that can live on 15K a year please, I beg you do so and show me what their quality of life is becasue thats $8,283.00 UNDER what the US Governments that poverty starts. Execs get paid what they can get away with even if it means destroying the companies that employs them like it happend during the housing crisis. I try as much as I can to avoid the big chains, I for the most part try to help small businesses with my money even if it means to pay a bit more for some goods and services.


Riiiight. Cause having 30 million new people in the low end market pool isnt going to hurt the poor even more. You have even more people filling less jobs in an economy where we are stagnant. But you dont see blacks being hurt the most when these people come in to the low skilled working pool? Lets be honest, behind latinos, which race drops out of school the most and has the largest population of low skilled workers?

You were the one that injected race relations to this conversation, seems to me you should enlighten us with your expertise and answer you own question.


Everything else is too. The point is, the second generations are Americanized and will be in the same boat as the rest of the poor. Like libs love to say, you can only succeed if your parents are wealthy, and thats why many minorities are still in poverty as a collective. Do you really believe 12 million mexicans will have their kids in private schools and going to universities on 4 minimum wage jobs through your line of thinking? According to libs, the poor stay poor because they dont have the opportunity to succeed as the rich. Even raising the min wage to $15/hr, they will still be poor because there will ALWAYS be "poor" people. You cant tax the rich and give to the poor enough to ever get out this by government force. Only through individual hard work and percervience can someone leave the poverty thresh hold. Redistrobution is like having 10 women vote on who the prettiest in the room is, and then slashing her face up to make her less pretty. But now there is a new "Prettiest", and a new vote, and another woman gets slashed. And it keeps going on until they are all slashed up and all in pain.
All rhetoric no substance. Common WJ5 you can do better.


Yes, legally. If mexico wants a war and take over what we built up and make it better, lets do this thang. Natives died, and I am appauled by the actions of earliest settlers. But you have to admit, the country was built and made better than the Native Americans had ever dreamed of doing. Yes, there are negatives, but there are plenty of positives. We can go back to the time of no cell phones or computers or cars, but we also go back to no cancer treatment, pollio, small pox, penicilin etc.

So you are placing the blame of illegal immigration on Mexico?!! There goes accountability. The "us vs them" theme here is strong. How can you possibly know if the Native American would had done better or worse? Were they given a chance? Seems to me you think that for some reason you are superior to others, I wonder what that reason is. I think theres a book that was written in the 1920's that talk about what your feeling is.


They are NOT citizens, thats the point. If its worse here than in Mexico, why do they still come here?
Because your government allows it.


If you are an illegal in Mexico, the treatment is far worse than what is recieved here. Our treatment of illegals is far superior than any latin American country.
Again with your feeling of superiority. Illegals get treated like crap in this country day in and day out, just because they dont treated "as bad" as in some other places it means that get treated good.


Dont try to pull the sympathy card here, it wont work with someone that isnt ignorant of how the rest of the world works. How were those travelers that accidently crossed the boarder to Iran treated?
No sympathy card being race. You are the one pounding your chest with your superiority complex. That whoever you count as "WE" are superiors to the mexicans, and the natives, and Iran or anything else.


Many of those 40% are whites from Europe
And thats an important distinction to make why? Because Europeans smell better? They look better? They don't have that foreign look? Perhaps is becasue you think they are smarter?


but please go on... And dont forget, those that over stayed their visas crashed planes into the twin towers, pentagon, and bombed the Boston Marathon.
I haven't forgot and thats why we need to have a comprehensive reform that its not blanket amnesty.


But please, show me how legallizing these people would be best for national security. Not to mention a lot of those that are part of the 60% are drug cartels and rapist and murderers and people who get countless DUIs but are just deported, some with more guns then they came with thanks to Fast and Furious. As far as those 40% of over stayed visas, do you have an actual number of them that actually finished their degrees or are you just speculating?
All rhetoric, your channeling your inner Glenn Beck.


More for the military pool? Are you kidding me? We are already downsizing the military and you want more people to be grunts? Not to mention service in the military makes it easier to obtain citizenship already and we do recruit from around the world. But they still need to pass a background check. Being a citizen doesnt mean there is a backround check, especially when amnesty is introduced.

And science, and technolgy and many other fields that will need a vibrant, young population for years to come.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 04:32 PM
That's the thing - because we're not a nation state, there's no "American" ethnicity to refer to. So, that forces one to resort to what their "heritage" is.

To demonstrate what I'm talking about; someone says that they're half white and half Mexican. Why don't they say they're half American? Because... "American" isn't an ethnicity.

Why has the US not become a nation state, like the rest of the New World?

It actually had a lot to do with how these countries handled the newly freed slaves after their respective emancipations. In the US, it was Jim Crow. Segregation. Everyone stays in their place, and they develop their own identities. The one-drop rule ensured that there'd be no "bridge," and maintained purity among whites.

In Latin American countries, the idea was to eliminate blacks by absorbing them. You have a child with a black person, that mulatto child then has a child with a white person; and so forth... and by the time you have an octaroon (sometimes even at quadroon), they look like just another white person. This wasn't 100% achieved, but black identity was highly discouraged and everyone identified with the mainstream - hence how they became nation states.

The US, as it stands right now, is beyond both scenarios... and will never be a nation state. It's just not going to happen.

Interesting that you mention that, and I tend to agree, identifying oneself as American is kind of its own animal in a certain sense. There is definitely such thing as what I would refer to as "American" culture, but it definitely differs at the very least in uniformity throughout its geography (kind of like the Middle East in that capacity, minus a lot of the bloodshed).

I think there is this push for "Americanism" in this day and age that may not have felt as necessary at this country's inception. I do think you're right though, the very diversity we take pride in as being "American" really does play against such a thing as becoming a nation state as such. I kind of prefer it that way, in my mind our country was founded on a little bit of controlled chaos.

Stalwart
12-03-2013, 04:33 PM
Why has the US not become a nation state, like the rest of the New World?

Or Canada :wink1:


It actually had a lot to do with how these countries handled the newly freed slaves after their respective emancipations. In the US, it was Jim Crow. Segregation. Everyone stays in their place, and they develop their own identities. The one-drop rule ensured that there'd be no "bridge," and maintained purity among whites.

There are many places I don't see much interest or desire on either side to change that.

Don't get me wrong, I like the diversity that the variety of cultures, heritages and ethnicities brings. In many ways we are our best at unifying when there is a common enemy/threat (WWII, 9/11). Granted we also did stupid things like internment camps and people thinking every Muslim is a terrorist that also sadden me greatly.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 04:48 PM
If I read correctly, it's a question of nationality and how one identifies themself. Someone who immigrates immigrated from somewhere (obviously) and thus would at least partially identify themselves with that heritage. Someone born inside this country would generally not identify with that nation in the same such fashion, they would identify themselves as purely American. Thus the point I got from it is that they are descended from immigrants, but not technically immigrants themselves. It's really a point of mere technicality more than anything else.

It is funny because I don't hear a lot of complaning when the irish, italians, polish, germans and other descendants from other european countries do it. But when the hispanics do it it gets labeled as "misplaced loyalty" thus they should get sent back. Not saying that this is going on here on this thread but something that I have notice through the years.

The things is that many of you will never experience what being an immigrant is, legal or illegal, and just can't relate to what happens emotionally and psychologically to a person that is forced to leave all it has known out of necessity. The one thing I can say is that is as hard as you migh think it is... times 100.

Stalwart
12-03-2013, 04:55 PM
It is funny because I don't here a lot of complaning when the irish, italians, polish, germans and other descendants from other european countries do it. But when the hispanics do it it gets labeled as "misplaced loyalty" thus they should get sent back. Not saying that this is going on here on this thread but something that I have notice through the years.

The things is that many of you will never experience what being an immigrant is, legal or illegal, and just can relate to what happens emotionally and psychologically to a person that is forced to leave all it has know out of necessity.

Both are good points.

One reason for that perception could be that about 80% of immigrants are from Mexico & Central America and even if they exude the same 'level' of pride in their heritage the numbers are pretty lopsided and give the appearance that it is more.

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 04:55 PM
Most Mexicans have more of a right to be here than we do. Their ancestors were here for thousands of years. That border was put there by people whose ancestors are from Europe.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 04:59 PM
Ignorant is calling them "mexican wages" the correct term is "slave wages" paid by morally bankrupted farmers. In your ignorance you trying to make it sound like this people who are being taken advantage of on a daily basis are asking their "masters" to be paid that kind of money. You need to understand that they dont have a choice in the matter.

And please let me know if you are going to start with the name calling. Your childish rants and antics around here are getting kind of old.[/QUOTE]

There you go again, changing the jargin to fit your needs. Remind me, how much was the pay for a typical slave pre 1865? IF $2/hr is "slave wage" because you deem it so with absolutely no ground to base that on, can my case of having our production stolen from us through income tax not be considered a form of slavery? Since in essesence, I am working for NO money a portion of the time I am at work, is income tax not make part of my time at work "slave wage"?

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 05:04 PM
Spoken like someone who has never had to do it. And you can spare me your stories about knowing someone who did it.

I have. I was smart enough to walk cause I couldnt afford the car. I didnt have a cell phone. I didnt go around sticking my wang in every piece of @$$ at the club and be burdened with a family to feed. I had a roommate. I had no cable. I used the internet at the library. I saved my money and I worked to support myself on several minimum wage jobs. I also worked my way up from there in a very short amount of time.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 05:05 PM
It is funny because I don't here a lot of complaning when the irish, italians, polish, germans and other descendants from other european countries do it. But when the hispanics do it it gets labeled as "misplaced loyalty" thus they should get sent back. Not saying that this is going on here on this thread but something that I have notice through the years.

For me personally it's kind of a weird argument to witness, as far as "ethnicities" are concerned I'm essentially a "mutt" and I can't really cling to much other than "American" or maybe "Minnesotan" based on the state where I grew up. I think pride in one's heritage and ethnicity is a good thing regardless and I'm not particularly inclined to say "deport them now" just because they express this pride on US soil. I'm also not inclined to look at a person who lives or works in America to be anything more than essentially "residents" and "guests" with the expectations to be treated similarly as if this entire nation was one giant "house". "Residents" in a house are expected to pay the rent/mortgage, clean it, etc. but in the end the rules they have for it are their own. The guests have less expectation as far as responsibilities to that house but while they visit it is expected that they behave themselves. They also have the ability to leave of their own volition should they wish to.

Me personally, I'm not offended in the least by people travelling to our country freely and contributing to our economy by working in it as our guests. It generally benefits us even though it does add competition for those low wage positions (which isn't an issue when Americans aren't applying for the jobs anyhow). I also have to appreciate the ability of foreigners to become job creators in this economy and hire Americans. The only immigrants I personally take issue with in the least are those who come in and start deliberately doing the equivalent of "breaking our windows" and "clogging our toilets". It is a behavior that would be frowned upon for guests to a house and should not be tolerated for guests in our country either, which to me is not a problem anyhow, our justice system takes care of that.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 05:15 PM
And please let me know if you are going to start with the name calling. Your childish rants and antics around here are getting kind of old.

There you go again, changing the jargin to fit your needs. Remind me, how much was the pay for a typical slave pre 1865? IF $2/hr is "slave wage" because you deem it so with absolutely no ground to base that on, can my case of having our production stolen from us through income tax not be considered a form of slavery? Since in essesence, I am working for NO money a portion of the time I am at work, is income tax not make part of my time at work "slave wage"?

The term "slave wage" is not new and you should not take it as me making a direct correlation to what a illegal immigrants makes on the farms accross America and what the slaves endured during their period. Is more representative of a situation in which the "wage vs need" of the individual are at an imbalance and the wage providers uses and abuses this to their advantage.

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 05:16 PM
Remind me, how much was the pay for a typical slave pre 1865?

Contrary to popular belief, most slaves WERE paid an allowance. You invest in high value property, you've gotta put money into that property for it to be properly maintained. Also, that "soul food" came from slave masters giving slaves the scraps of the animals isn't completely accurate. Many slaves actually raised their own chickens and pigs, but let none of it go to waste. Cows are more expensive (notice how there are no beef dishes in soul food). Also, not every slave master raised their own livestock to be giving out scraps in the first place.

Sure, you provide the slaves the things the need - for example, warm clothes so they can do the work in cold temperatures - but that's work on your part. Many simply preferred to give their slaves an allowance to take care of that themselves.

I don't know how much that allowance typically was. But what this demonstrates is that there IS a such thing as a "slave wage."

Stalwart
12-03-2013, 05:38 PM
Most Mexicans have more of a right to be here than we do. Their ancestors were here for thousands of years. That border was put there by people whose ancestors are from Europe.

What about those descended from the Spanish or the Portuguese? While probably not a majority of the population, it has to be a pretty substantial number. A quick look at Wikipedia (sorry) says that from 1857-1976 there were 824,682 immigrants from Spain to Mexico … I wonder how the trickle down of decedents diversified the population of the Aztecs.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 05:53 PM
The first entree on the platter looks like it is about to be served:

Boehner hires legalization advocate:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/3/boehner-legalization-advocate-advise-immigration/

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 05:56 PM
What about those descended from the Spanish or the Portuguese?

Hence, why I used the word "most."

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 06:44 PM
I don't think even is the food stamps are cut you are going to see many people (white or black) lining up for farm jobs, or for dishwashing positions, or other such jobs. As nonsensical as this might sound for many people is not a "money" issue is more of a "pride" issue when it comes to doing this jobs, it is utter nonsense but sometimes that's how many people think.Sadly, people think with a high school diploma only, they have some pride in that.


The myth of a living wage is not funny, is quite sad actually. Show me a typical family of 4 in that can live on 15K a year please, I beg you do so and show me what their quality of life is becasue thats $8,283.00 UNDER what the US Governments that poverty starts. Execs get paid what they can get away with even if it means destroying the companies that employs them like it happend during the housing crisis. I try as much as I can to avoid the big chains, I for the most part try to help small businesses with my money even if it means to pay a bit more for some goods and services. Show me why there is someone making $15k a year and still reproducing? Maybe getting a wife/husband to combine incomes and bills, but why the hell are we looking to accomadate those who make poor life decissions and reproduce before they can afford to? Sadly, people are no longer looking at raising a kid or two like purchasing a car. Who would seriously say its a good idea to have a baby when they make so little? And who says its a good idea to coddle people with this lack of intelligence is beyond stupid.


You were the one that injected race relations to this conversation, seems to me you should enlighten us with your expertise and answer you own question.I know the answer, but are you asking me to google it for you because you are in denial and dont want to admit that blacks are the 2nd most race in the dropout rate? I was hoping you would be honest with yourself, its something thats tough I know because you will be branded as an uncle tom or race traitor to acknowledge this fact as black conservatives are labeled. Luckily people like Anita King and Allen West are brave enough to admit the well documented truth to address the problems even though the democratic overlords of the "PC community" ridicule and vilely attack them.


All rhetoric no substance. Common WJ5 you can do better.Yes, it is. Its all liebral rhetoric that gets passed around when talked about schools of choice and the question from conservatives of why is the black community still as bad today, if not worse, than it was 20, 30, 50 years ago? The samething is always mentioned and that is whites have privilage and money to keep their kids getting all the breaks.


So you are placing the blame of illegal immigration on Mexico?!! There goes accountability. The "us vs them" theme here is strong. How can you possibly know if the Native American would had done better or worse? Were they given a chance? Seems to me you think that for some reason you are superior to others, I wonder what that reason is. I think theres a book that was written in the 1920's that talk about what your feeling is.
Hmm, well, lets look at Mexico, Panama, Belieze, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, etc. Which country is the fore runner of the world in inovations and medicine and quality of life and everything else the US had become? The 2 countries not filled with the ancestory of native Americans are the two that dont live in poverty for most of their population. Even the Native Americans that are in the US, on reservations are typically less productive and some of the poorest people in the US. Just going on facts, not a sense of superiority.


Because your government allows it.Thats not an answer to my question.


Again with your feeling of superiority. Illegals get treated like crap in this country day in and day out, just because they dont treated "as bad" as in some other places it means that get treated good.Should they be treated to the life of luxury in a place they provide little to the country? At least they get to keep every single dime the make through their production unlike the rest of us slaves to big government,


No sympathy card being race. You are the one pounding your chest with your superioty complex. That whoever you count as "WE" are superiors to the mexicans, and the natives, and Iran or anything elseI am talking about the US. You are taking what I am saying as "superiority" is what you see when I present you with facts.


Ans thats an important distinction to make why? Because Europeans smell better? They look better? They don't have that foreign look? Perhaps is becasue you think they are smarter? HA!! By no means do I think they smell better. Or look better, have you seen latin women? Um, Look foreign? A southerner can look foreign to yankee. A crypt looks foreign to a Blood. Do try to stand all high and mighty about looks there bub. Smarter, eh. Its harder to get across an ocean than a creek.


I haven't forgot and thats why we need to have a comprehensive reform that its not blanket amnesty.So, how do you propose that? Who is seriously going to stand up and say "Im here illegally, please dont deport me."? Very few, and then even more will be coming in just like they did in the 80's.


All rhetoric, your channeling your inner Glenn Beck. LOL, you must listen to him more than I do because you seem to know everything he says. You still missed my question of how many that say past their visas have actual degrees or trade skills? But you deflected to a strawman in Glenn Beck.


And science, and technolgy and many other fields that can will needs a vibrant, young population for years to come.
We dont have enough room for those people now. Show me a careerfield in those sectors that are hurting for US AMERICANS. You cant get there with a sub high school diploma which more than half of the immagrints have.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 06:51 PM
Most Mexicans have more of a right to be here than we do. Their ancestors were here for thousands of years. That border was put there by people whose ancestors are from Europe.

Would you say the same about Isreal? How about the germanic tribes in Europe? There are many examples throughout the world of one group of people coming along and taking over a land and calling it theirs. Why is it only Americans seem to think they "stole" the land from a group of people? And lets not be nieve, Native Americans where killing off other tribes when they were here alone, so dont try to dilude this discussion by making us think they were all peaceful people.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 06:57 PM
Contrary to popular belief, most slaves WERE paid an allowance. You invest in high value property, you've gotta put money into that property for it to be properly maintained. Also, that "soul food" came from slave masters giving slaves the scraps of the animals isn't completely accurate. Many slaves actually raised their own chickens and pigs, but let none of it go to waste. Cows are more expensive (notice how there are no beef dishes in soul food). Also, not every slave master raised their own livestock to be giving out scraps in the first place.

Sure, you provide the slaves the things the need - for example, warm clothes so they can do the work in cold temperatures - but that's work on your part. Many simply preferred to give their slaves an allowance to take care of that themselves.

I don't know how much that allowance typically was. But what this demonstrates is that there IS a such thing as a "slave wage."

Interesting, I kind of would like to know where to look that up at.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 06:57 PM
Would you say the same about Isreal? How about the germanic tribes in Europe? There are many examples throughout the world of one group of people coming along and taking over a land and calling it theirs. Why is it only Americans seem to think they "stole" the land from a group of people? And lets not be nieve, Native Americans where killing off other tribes when they were here alone, so dont try to dilude this discussion by making us think they were all peaceful people.

I don't think Israel is exactly what we'd call a great example of moving in on someone's claimed turf absent a controversy...

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 07:10 PM
Would you say the same about Isreal? How about the germanic tribes in Europe?

Is Israel closed to immigration of Jews from other countries? No. In fact, ALL Jews who want Israeli citizenship will be granted it upon request. Are the Germanic people of Europe not calling the shots in their own countries?

Whatever point you were trying to make with these two examples was a fail.


There are many examples throughout the world of one group of people coming along and taking over a land and calling it theirs.

I suppose you'll let your children do whatever they want, as long as they tell you that all of the other kids are doing it.


Why is it only Americans seem to think they "stole" the land from a group of people? And lets not be nieve, Native Americans where killing off other tribes when they were here alone, so dont try to dilude this discussion by making us think they were all peaceful people.

...and if someone was from a country across the ocean, none of this is their concern.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 07:11 PM
I don't think Israel is exactly what we'd call a great example of moving in on someone's claimed turf absent a controversy...

I wasnt saying Israelis or Jews, I was just saying Isreal. Its just amazing how some people bash America and the policies we have for immagrints and past Native Tribes, but yet fail to look at the history of the world or even present day EU sates who are failing because of too much undocumented immagrints leaching off the system.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 07:18 PM
Is Israel closed to immigration of Jews from other countries? No. In fact, ALL Jews who want Israeli citizenship will be granted it upon request. Are the Germanic people of Europe not calling the shots in their own countries?

Whatever point you were trying to make with these two examples was a fail.Like I said, I wasnt talking about Jews specifically, just the location.

Second, are you sure those decendants in the countries now are the origional occupiers of that land? Or is it just the last people to conquer the area?


I suppose you'll let your children do whatever they want, as long as they tell you that all of the other kids are doing it.Not what I am saying. But I guess you know better than I is what you are saying? Liberals love that stance. Just look at Obamacare. What I was saying is that you really think it is that bad here for immagrints when they are freely making the choice to come here and work for the wages they are offered? We should be more like EU with failing economies under the weight of dead beat immagrints.


...and if someone was from a country across the ocean, none of this is their concern.
What does this statement have to do with

Why is it only Americans seem to think they "stole" the land from a group of people? And lets not be nieve, Native Americans where killing off other tribes when they were here alone, so dont try to dilude this discussion by making us think they were all peaceful people.
??

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 07:19 PM
I wasnt saying Israelis or Jews, I was just saying Isreal. Its just amazing how some people bash America and the policies we have for immagrints and past Native Tribes, but yet fail to look at the history of the world or even present day EU sates who are failing because of too much undocumented immagrints leaching off the system.

We hold ourselves accountable to our actions, it makes a great deal of more sense than rationalizing them away through the actions of others. I'd say discussing "Native" Americans though is only as good as a history lesson in humility.

The problem here is it is troublesome to state that undocumented immigrants are a "drain" on our economy. In many cases I think the opposite is true. It may affect the unemployment numbers somewhat, that may be a valid assertion. The problem is that we have so many people "undocumented" that any statistics used to support or deconstruct an argument is questionable at best because quite frankly they lack accuracy (because they are also not on record).

Immigration reform at the outset is not a bad idea, when we change the status of all of these immigrants from "undocumented" to "documented" at least we can begin to have an honest discussion about whether their presence has a net positive or net negative effect on the rest of us here, and then make a decision what we intend to do about it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-03-2013, 07:32 PM
We hold ourselves accountable to our actions, it makes a great deal of more sense than rationalizing them away through the actions of others. I'd say discussing "Native" Americans though is only as good as a history lesson in humility. Ok, and the way we treat immagrints today is a hell of a lot better than we treat our own poor. And its better than anyone else in the world that wants to stay away from economic ruin treats their immigrints. As long as certian people feel that certain work is "beneath" them, there will always be a need for the undocumented worker. As long as we keep our fuel prices high by not tapping our own natural resources, the more we will rely on the human resource for production at a price the public is willing to pay for crops.


The problem here is it is troublesome to state that undocumented immigrants are a "drain" on our economy. In many cases I think the opposite is true. It may affect the unemployment numbers somewhat, that may be a valid assertion. The problem is that we have so many people "undocumented" that any statistics used to support or deconstruct an argument is questionable at best because quite frankly they lack accuracy (because they are also not on record).True about not having the proper figures. But a drain on the society they are in some aspects, and other aspects, they are the reason why food prices are still as low as they are. Start forcing farmers to chose between paying migrant workers 3x as much or using machiens to pick the fields, and you may see more migrant workers without work. Its all about economics, farmers used to have big families because it would make it easier a cheaper to pick their own crops through their kids. The kids would also get a lesson in how to manage the farm and one day run it themselves. Now the federal government has even made that illegal.


Immigration reform at the outset is not a bad idea, when we change the status of all of these immigrants from "undocumented" to "documented" at least we can begin to have an honest discussion about whether their presence has a net positive or net negative effect on the rest of us here, and then make a decision what we intend to do about it.
I wonder why we need to reform instead of just enforcing the current laws like securing our boarders? When someone shoots up a school or we look at the many gun related crimes that are daily, there is a call for tighter restrictions on LEGAL gun owners. When liberals love to say the rich dont pay their "fair share", the cry is to make it MORE restrictive for those people that do follow the law. But sense every single "undocumented person" is already breaking the law once, some several times over, we want to call for lifting restrictions for EVERYONE? Its insane.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 07:34 PM
We hold ourselves accountable to our actions, it makes a great deal of more sense than rationalizing them away through the actions of others. I'd say discussing "Native" Americans though is only as good as a history lesson in humility.

The problem here is it is troublesome to state that undocumented immigrants are a "drain" on our economy. In many cases I think the opposite is true. It may affect the unemployment numbers somewhat, that may be a valid assertion. The problem is that we have so many people "undocumented" that any statistics used to support or deconstruct an argument is questionable at best because quite frankly they lack accuracy (because they are also not on record).

Immigration reform at the outset is not a bad idea, when we change the status of all of these immigrants from "undocumented" to "documented" at least we can begin to have an honest discussion about whether their presence has a net positive or net negative effect on the rest of us here, and then make a decision what we intend to do about it.

Excellent.

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 07:34 PM
Like I said, I wasnt talking about Jews specifically, just the location.

We're also speaking in context of immigration. Why did you bring them up? Did you mean to imply that Israel was run by people not from there, and closes off immigration to people who are?


Second, are you sure those decendants in the countries now are the origional occupiers of that land? Or is it just the last people to conquer the area?

It's a complicated story, as you're aware - modern Isrealis being the descendants of repatriated European Jews. In the end, Israel is a red herring that you brought up to distract us from the discussion of US immigration. So why are we still discussing Israel?


Not what I am saying. But I guess you know better than I is what you are saying? Liberals love that stance.

Typical conservative. You see what you consider to be a flaw, and attribute it to my political leaning.


Just look at Obamacare. What I was saying is that you really think it is that bad here for immagrints when they are freely making the choice to come here and work for the wages they are offered? We should be more like EU with failing economies under the weight of dead beat immagrints.

Typical conservative. Always bringing up Obamacare. I was being sarcastic the previous time I said "typical conservative," because I don't like doing it. But this time around? Nope. Conservatives love to bring up Obamacare when talking to a liberal, even when the discussion at hand is about something that's the furthest thing from it.


What does this statement have to do with??

What you said appeared to imply that Europeans were justified in the conquest of the Americas, because of Native Americans killing each other. If that's not what you were saying, then what were you saying?

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 08:10 PM
It is funny because I don't hear a lot of complaning when the irish, italians, polish, germans and other descendants from other european countries do it. But when the hispanics do it it gets labeled as "misplaced loyalty" thus they should get sent back. Not saying that this is going on here on this thread but something that I have notice through the years.
The things is that many of you will never experience what being an immigrant is, legal or illegal, and just can't relate to what happens emotionally and psychologically to a person that is forced to leave all it has known out of necessity. The one thing I can say is that is as hard as you migh think it is... times 100.

You don't hear alot of complaining because we weren't alive when they came to the US. But when they did come to the USA you sure as hell bet that people were complaining. All you have to do is look at the history of the NE and you can tell there were disagreements and fights. People complained when the Irish came, 20 years later the Irish complained because the Italians came, 20 years later the Irish came again. All you have to do is look at history. Stop being ignorant of our past as a country.

Like I said to you before I have first hand experience of when a immigrant packs up their stuff and comes here, I see her every day when I go home from work. I am not saying it isn't hard, because it sure as hell is. This October marked 1 year since she came to the USA and she is homesick like hell. But she loves me and knows that it is better here.

No one is FORCED to leave anywhere to come here, everyone has a choice.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 08:17 PM
I wasnt saying Israelis or Jews, I was just saying Isreal. Its just amazing how some people bash America and the policies we have for immagrints and past Native Tribes, but yet fail to look at the history of the world or even present day EU sates who are failing because of too much undocumented immagrints leaching off the system.

All you have to do is look at the news coming from the UK and you can tell that. It's either the Roma that are coming from Eastern Europe and start receiving benefits or the Muslims that come there and start receiving benefits and wanting to change the laws.

We as a country are very lenient to both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. We accept more people legally every year to come and immigrate here than the rest of the world combined.

Rusty Jones
12-03-2013, 08:21 PM
You don't hear alot of complaining because we weren't alive when they came to the US. But when they did come to the USA you sure as hell bet that people were complaining. All you have to do is look at the history of the NE and you can tell there were disagreements and fights. People complained when the Irish came, 20 years later the Irish complained because the Italians came, 20 years later the Irish came again. All you have to do is look at history. Stop being ignorant of our past as a country.

European immigrants, at the time, were visually indistinguishable from WASPs and were accepted into the fold by the next generation that didn't have accents.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 08:28 PM
Ok, and the way we treat immagrints today is a hell of a lot better than we treat our own poor. And its better than anyone else in the world that wants to stay away from economic ruin treats their immigrints. As long as certian people feel that certain work is "beneath" them, there will always be a need for the undocumented worker. As long as we keep our fuel prices high by not tapping our own natural resources, the more we will rely on the human resource for production at a price the public is willing to pay for crops.

True about not having the proper figures. But a drain on the society they are in some aspects, and other aspects, they are the reason why food prices are still as low as they are. Start forcing farmers to chose between paying migrant workers 3x as much or using machiens to pick the fields, and you may see more migrant workers without work. Its all about economics, farmers used to have big families because it would make it easier a cheaper to pick their own crops through their kids. The kids would also get a lesson in how to manage the farm and one day run it themselves. Now the federal government has even made that illegal.


I wonder why we need to reform instead of just enforcing the current laws like securing our boarders? When someone shoots up a school or we look at the many gun related crimes that are daily, there is a call for tighter restrictions on LEGAL gun owners. When liberals love to say the rich dont pay their "fair share", the cry is to make it MORE restrictive for those people that do follow the law. But sense every single "undocumented person" is already breaking the law once, some several times over, we want to call for lifting restrictions for EVERYONE? Its insane.
I would contend the laws in place put us partially in the situation we're in. We've essentially created for ourselves yet another black market, but rather than dealing in illicit goods and services we're now dealing in human resources. I could go on to speculate the various reasons why an immigrant would choose to remain undocumented but I think it's fair to quite simply state that they don't entirely feel they're fully welcome here. In a sense it's very similar to homosexuals in the military prior to the DADT repeal.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 08:31 PM
I'm seeing a lot of comments about not moving undocumented immigrants to the "front of the line". I would comment the major issues we have today are mostly due to the fact that those immigrants are not in the line at all.
Part of the reason I personally reject the idea of blanket citizenship (which I think most of us have in common) is that it is entirely possible for someone to want to visit while not claiming US Citizenship. That's probably fairly obvious to most but that does not mean it's unimportant.
I think for any sort of "reform" to work we have to make the distinction in our own minds between non-citizen immigrants and immigrants seeking citizenship. One would think such a thing is fairly self-evident but I often do see people making arguments against one which are more appropriate to the other and vice versa. It really shouldn't be that big a deal when we make the distinction between natural rights of personhood and the rights derived by contract through US Citizenship. I think much of the confusion has to do with the allotment of entitlements towards citizens vs. immigrants. I'll put aside for the moment my own feelings towards entitlements, but it should be fairly straightforward that it is not an American taxpayer's responsibility to subsidize an individual with whom no contract of citizenship exists.

I am all for immigrants having a place in line towards a green card maybe even more. But they have to work toward it and not be leeches on society. But from what I was reading and gathering together a large number of illegal advocacy groups were wanting them to go ahead to the front of the line no matter what. When there are still WW2 vets from the Philippines that are STILL trying to bring their families over here to the US. Illegals should not get first of anything at all.

Immigrants coming here illegal or legal need to A) Learn English B) Work. At least here in the San Gabriel Valley we have ALOT of Chinese here and it looks like Chinatown all over, but the majority of them know basic English. But when I go to other places around California there are a large amount of Hispanics that DO NOT SPEAK English. Even my neighbor's family that came here from Mexico can speak passable English. She might have to get confirmation on a word or two but it's fine. But if you come here then learn to speak English.

It also didn't help the illegal immigrant cause when they put out that stupid commercial about them wanting to be able to enroll in the ACA/Obamacare because "they are people too". Sorry I almost threw up on that.

EDIT: Sorry I got on a soap box there but I hear about immigration issues every single day when I go home. My main tv is turned TFC (The Filipino Channel) until about 7:15pm every night, and immigration is one of the key topics for the news that they cover for the USA/Canada. Also there are a couple different immigration shows that come on paid for by lawyers that will answer any questions.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 08:35 PM
European immigrants, at the time, were visually indistinguishable from WASPs and were accepted into the fold by the next generation that didn't have accents.

I agree to a point. But every ethnic group tended to stick within their own group. So yes it was pretty distinguishable if you know what to look for. They were accepted in part because they were forced to learn English. While today that isn't the case, it is being propagated that it's ok that you don't speak english we will cater to you.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 08:42 PM
I am all for immigrants having a place in line towards a green card maybe even more. But they have to work toward it and not be leeches on society. But from what I was reading and gathering together a large number of illegal advocacy groups were wanting them to go ahead to the front of the line no matter what. When there are WW2 vets from the Philippines that are STILL trying to bring their families over here to the US. Illegals should not get first of anything at all.

Immigrants coming here illegal or legal need to A) Learn English B) Work. At least here in the San Gabriel Valley we have ALOT of Chinese here and it looks like Chinatown all over, but the majority of them know basic English. But when I go to other places around California there are a large amount of Hispanics that DO NOT SPEAK English. Even my neighbor's family that came here from Mexico can speak passable English. She might have to get confirmation on a word or two but it's fine. But if you come here then learn to speak English.

It also didn't help the illegal immigrant cause when they put out that stupid commercial about them wanting to be able to enroll in the ACA/Obamacare because "they are people too". Sorry I almost threw up on that.
This is the stuff that gets used for those interested in breaking down an earnest discussion, nothing against you as you're not introducing anything unsourced but I must be honest a lot of this stems from pure demagoguery. The only thing being discussed at the moment (well amidst a lot of verbal chaff) is the process by which we move these undocumented immigrants into a documented status. What's important here is we're not simply granting citizenship like the wave of a magic wand. I don't think, as guests to our country, they are in any position to demand taxpayer entitlements nor would I support any legislation that states otherwise. What would be the case is that we would take the fear of discovery and prosecution out of the equation, and allow them a means to contribute to our economy honestly. If they happen to like it so much that they grow a desire to become an active citizen, the means become available for them to go about it via the standard processes, no head of the line privileges and no special considerations. They can truly earn that citizenship.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 08:50 PM
I am all for immigrants having a place in line towards a green card maybe even more. But they have to work toward it and not be leeches on society. But from what I was reading and gathering together a large number of illegal advocacy groups were wanting them to go ahead to the front of the line no matter what. When there are still WW2 vets from the Philippines that are STILL trying to bring their families over here to the US. Illegals should not get first of anything at all.

Immigrants coming here illegal or legal need to A) Learn English B) Work. At least here in the San Gabriel Valley we have ALOT of Chinese here and it looks like Chinatown all over, but the majority of them know basic English. But when I go to other places around California there are a large amount of Hispanics that DO NOT SPEAK English. Even my neighbor's family that came here from Mexico can speak passable English. She might have to get confirmation on a word or two but it's fine. But if you come here then learn to speak English.

It also didn't help the illegal immigrant cause when they put out that stupid commercial about them wanting to be able to enroll in the ACA/Obamacare because "they are people too". Sorry I almost threw up on that.

EDIT: Sorry I got on a soap box there but I hear about immigration issues every single day when I go home. My main tv is turned TFC (The Filipino Channel) until about 7:15pm every night, and immigration is one of the key topics for the news that they cover for the USA/Canada. Also there are a couple different immigration shows that come on paid for by lawyers that will answer any questions.

Speaking English as a requirement for being a citizen? Is that in the constitution or something where did I missed that? I've been a US citizen all my life but only for the past 10 have come to develop a basic understading of the language, I'm close to 40. I have lived more years of my life not knowing english than knowing, did that made me less of a citizen?

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 08:51 PM
This is the stuff that gets used for those interested in breaking down an earnest discussion, nothing against you as you're not introducing anything unsourced but I must be honest a lot of this stems from pure demagoguery. The only thing being discussed at the moment (well amidst a lot of verbal chaff) is the process by which we move these undocumented immigrants into a documented status. What's important here is we're not simply granting citizenship like the wave of a magic wand. I don't think, as guests to our country, they are in any position to demand taxpayer entitlements nor would I support any legislation that states otherwise. What would be the case is that we would take the fear of discovery and prosecution out of the equation, and allow them a means to contribute to our economy honestly. If they happen to like it so much that they grow a desire to become an active citizen, the means become available for them to go about it via the standard processes, no head of the line privileges and no special considerations. They can truly earn that citizenship.

Just like I said before "I agree with you".

The ONLY setback that I can see is that some people will not want to pay the fines and the other fees that come along with getting that work visa/green card. Because they were talking about first paying a fine for being here illegally then pay the fee for the worker visa. After a certain number of years of obeying that laws of the land, then they can apply for a green card and pay the fee associated with that as well.
Some people have already stated that would not pay the fees and it should be handed to them. That's my biggest issue right there. When I brought my wife here on a K1 Fiance visa and we got married, we then had to apply for a green card for her. I paid everything out of pocket and it was $1050 for the green card fees alone, but I paid it. So no one should just be handed it to them.

There are too many people here in this county illegally trying to demand for they think this country owes them.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 08:54 PM
Speaking English as a requirement for being a citizen? Is that in the constitution or something where did I missed that? I've been a US citizen all my life but only for the past 10 have come to develop a basic understading of the language, I'm close to 40. I have lived more years of my life not knowing english than knowing, did that made me less of a citizen?

Where are you from if you don't mind me asking? If you are from Puerto Rico then that's fine because that's the language down there. I am talking about here living in CONUS. I didn't mean to make it seem like you are less of a citizen. I am just saying that if you immigrate here then you need to speak English. But Puerto Rico is a completely different thing entirely. I have many Puerto Rican friends who could barely speak English while I was in the Marine Corps, but they were good people and citizens.

Rainmaker
12-03-2013, 08:56 PM
The Rich Bankers running our country should demand their bought and paid for Pols immediately legalize all "undocumented workers" and grant them amnesty. It's only fair because, the Spaniard Conquistadors crossed the Bearing Strait first. Besides have you seen the price of Groceries lately? What Amerika really needs right now to spur the economy is to start bringing in Boatloads of Somallian pirates to work in the fields. These latins are gettin too pricey. We need to make them compete. NomSayin?

Bunch
12-03-2013, 09:00 PM
Where are you from if you don't mind me asking? If you are from Puerto Rico then that's fine because that's the language down there. I am talking about here living in CONUS. I didn't mean to make it seem like you are less of a citizen. I am just saying that if you immigrate here then you need to speak English. But Puerto Rico is a completely different thing.

Yeah...PR.

I agree on principle that everyone should speak English but not as far as placing it as a requirement for citizenship because it places some people mostly the elderly at a disadvantage. If you tell me people under 40 should past an English test then maybe.... who knows.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 09:02 PM
The Rich Bankers running our country should demand their bought and paid for Pols immediately legalize all "undocumented workers" and grant them amnesty. It's only fair because, the Spaniard Conquistodors crossed the Bearing Strait first. Besides have you seen the price of Groceries lately? What we really need right now to spur the economy is to start bringing in Boatloads of Somallian pirates to work in our fields. These latins are gettin too pricey. We need to make them compete. NomSayin?

Some much welcome levity...

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 09:15 PM
Just like I said before "I agree with you".

The ONLY setback that I can see is that some people will not want to pay the fines and the other fees that come along with getting that work visa/green card. Because they were talking about first paying a fine for being here illegally then pay the fee for the worker visa. After a certain number of years of obeying that laws of the land, then they can apply for a green card and pay the fee associated with that as well.
Some people have already stated that would not pay the fees and it should be handed to them. That's my biggest issue right there. When I brought my wife here on a K1 Fiance visa and we got married, we then had to apply for a green card for her. I paid everything out of pocket and it was $1050 for the green card fees alone, but I paid it. So no one should just be handed it to them.

There are too many people here in this county illegally trying to demand for they think this country owes them.

Honestly not a big fan of the fees, if I were "king for a day" you'd be reimbursed the money. Just by these people being here working and spending capital they're contributing something positive to the economy. Adding the fee just encourages them to fly under the radar. I would dispense with the cost involvement entirely and only ask in return they consent to a basic background check.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 09:15 PM
Yeah...PR.

I agree on principle that everyone should speak English but not as far as placing it as a requirement for citizenship because it places some people mostly the elderly at a disadvantage. If you tell me people under 40 should past an English test then maybe.... who knows.

I can agree with you on that. When I am thinking people learn English I mean people like me in their 30's and below. Because we both know once people go past a certain age they tell the rest to SU*k it.

But I will tell you this from my own experience. When my wife came here from the Philippines she was literally shocked that everyone did not speak English. Because according to the rest of the world Americans speak English and that's it. Also in alot of the world how well you know English will help you be more successful, that's the theory anyway. That's why my wife stressed to her nieces and nephews to learn English as well as they can, because it will help them get a job abroad.

English is my wife's 4th language she had to learn and yes it was hard for to learn to speak it properly. But she learned it.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 09:17 PM
Honestly not a big fan of the fees, if I were "king for a day" you'd be reimbursed the money. Just by these people being here working and spending capital they're contributing something positive to the economy. Adding the fee just encourages them to fly under the radar. I would dispense with the cost involvement entirely and only ask in return they consent to a basic background check.

That's part of the fee is the background check, fingerprinting, and interview.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 09:25 PM
That's part of the fee is the background check, fingerprinting, and interview.

I would consider another means of sourcing, possibly even subsidizing if necessary, the costs, and probably figuring out how to reduce it as well.

Bunch
12-03-2013, 09:29 PM
I can agree with you on that. When I am thinking people learn English I mean people like me in their 30's and below. Because we both know once people go past a certain age they tell the rest to SU*k it.

But I will tell you this from my own experience. When my wife came here from the Philippines she was literally shocked that everyone did not speak English. Because according to the rest of the world Americans speak English and that's it. Also in alot of the world how well you know English will help you be more successful, that's the theory anyway. That's why my wife stressed to her nieces and nephews to learn English as well as they can, because it will help them get a job abroad.

English is my wife's 4th language she had to learn and yes it was hard for to learn to speak it properly. But she learned it.
Big ups to you and her. Me and my wife are going through the same when it comes to learning English. She came from PR never lived in the states and at 36 it hasn't been easy for her but she is way ahead, in 2 years of living here she has improved and learned a lot and I can see for her is a matter of pride because she stays at home and I wasn't pushing her at all with it but little by little she has managed to learn it

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 09:43 PM
Big ups to you and her. Me and my wife are going through the same when it comes to learning English. She came from PR never lived in the states and at 36 it hasn't been easy for her but she is way ahead, in 2 years of living here she has improved and learned a lot and I can see for her is a matter of pride because she stays at home and I wasn't pushing her at all with it but little by little she has managed to learn it

Yeah my wife had to go through a great deal with it as well. Because where she lives in the Philippines she speaks Bisaya (Cebuano) everyday and hear Tagalog on tv. There is no direct usage of English. Her biggest problem is that English has so many words to mean 1 thing and constantly asks me to help her understand what a word means. When I first met her sarcasm was unknown to her, because in Filipino society you are very direct and don't use sarcasm. So I would say something and she would take literally and get PISSED (Due to the Spanish blood).
You are right it is a BIG source of pride for her. Right before she came to the USA she got into an altercation with her ex-bf's new gf, and my wife was trying to tell her that she is just crazy for acting like that because she wants nothing to do with him and she is just being jealous. So my wife made the comment of "Poor you for thinking that I still want him", well that girl who isn't good in English thought that my wife just called her poor. Which started another altercation, even though my wife literally grew up "dirt floor poor".

Just encourage your wife and never let her give up. You can tell my wife has an accent and isn't from the US, but you can at least understand her. I don't push my wife but she just wants to learn and have people understand her and her understand people. But she really can't understand people that speak with a southern drawl.

efmbman
12-03-2013, 09:47 PM
Speaking English as a requirement for being a citizen? Is that in the constitution or something where did I missed that? I've been a US citizen all my life but only for the past 10 have come to develop a basic understading of the language, I'm close to 40. I have lived more years of my life not knowing english than knowing, did that made me less of a citizen?

Are you in favor of ballots being printed in multiple languages?

garhkal
12-03-2013, 10:08 PM
What preferential treatment? You mean having them work 20 hrs a day for 5 pesos!? That's what in conservatives circle pass as preferential treatment? YGTBSM!!

Preferential treatment in the fact that many of those in govt seem to want to allow them to gain access to citizenship or other legal means to stay.
Now if those illegally here have to go back home, THEN if they put in papers to come here legally, they go to the back of the line behind all the others who already are waiting, that i can get behind.



Now you are just plainly acting stupid. We have NEVER closed the doors at all. We have always allowed people to come here LEGALLY. We need to make sure that the borders are shut tight so that people don't come here illegally. Hell I am for putting drones with guns on the border and killing those that come across illegally.

I favor a 3 tier system.
1) Ditch the border from one coast to the other 200 meters deep, 100 meters across.
2) Take all the earth from that ditch and make a rampart on our side, that gets 'cemented in place'.
3) place a wall atop the rampart.
If they make it past the ditch onto the rampart, then they get a warning shot. If they still come up to the wall, THEN shoot to kill.



What you are advocating is that people just let the people that are illegally disobeying our laws just go with automatic green cards or citizenship. I believe that people who are here illegally should have to pay a fine and WORK to achieve a green card, if you violate the law then you are deported end of story. That's what people who come here legally have to worry about as well. If my wife commits a offense involving murder, assault, drugs or robbery. Then after she has paid her debt to society then she will be deported. So why can't that happen to those that here illegally or want to work towards a green card?

Exactly. We already make those here illegally go home after serving jail time for crimes, but is not being here illegally a crime also?


Path to citizenship. First earn your keep, then green card, then citizenship.

Which is imo a defacto amnesty for the fact they came here and have been here illegally. That is part n parcel of what i say is preferential treatment.


Don't listen to our crazies. Any common sense liberal/progressive will understand that this immigration deal can't be blanket amnesty. It just can't, not because republicans won't allow it but just because is not right for the country. Is not right for the people like you and your wife, is not right because the message it sends, is not right because it could lead to fraud, is not right because of security issues among many other issues.

Kind of hard not to listen to them when they seem to be the ones pushing the issues and label anyone opposed a racist..


but that does not mean it's unimportant.

I think for any sort of "reform" to work we have to make the distinction in our own minds between non-citizen immigrants and immigrants seeking citizenship. One would think such a thing is fairly self-evident but I often do see people making arguments against one which are more appropriate to the other and vice versa. It really shouldn't be that big a deal when we make the distinction between natural rights of personhood and the rights derived by contract through US Citizenship. I think much of the confusion has to do with the allotment of entitlements towards citizens vs. immigrants. I'll put aside for the moment my own feelings towards entitlements, but it should be fairly straightforward that it is not an American taxpayer's responsibility to subsidize an individual with whom no contract of citizenship exists.

Nicely said AJ.


Exactly my point. Too many people in America have an entitlement mentality and think these jobs are beneath them, mainly because you can recieve government handouts and "make more" than those jobs provide. Cut off the government handouts and watch people (white and black) go running for those jobs.


Egads me and joker agree here.. I have heard many instances of someone saying to the 'Job placement staff" that this job is beneath me..


Again the "us vs "them" theme. Are you for what others here have mention which is to create a permanent class of secondary citizens lets called them "permanent immigrants" where they get to work and live here but they don't get any other benefits reserved for the nobility ranks of "citizens". Because look at the middle east and see hows that working out in countries that follow such a route, look at Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia and other countries that have those type of systems in place and see what happens.

SO what do you feel we should do butch? Just have no borders? No differentiation between someone who is a citizen and someone who is just visiting?



Absolutely not. At the same time, I think there is a necessity to ensure that there are jobs for those that are here legally (citizens and immigrants). From a question of legality, a citizen does enjoy certain protections that an immigrant does not. There are rights that are and should be afforded to immigrants who are here legally. A question with both a legal and moral aspect is what rights are there legally for someone who is here illegally (I don't mean basic human rights, but things like financial aid, optional medical care, educational benefits etc.?)


I actually feel there should be 3 tiers here. Born citizens, naturalized citizens and legalized immigrants.
As for what 'rights' someone here illegally should have.. NONE.


It is funny because I don't hear a lot of complaning when the irish, italians, polish, germans and other descendants from other european countries do it. But when the hispanics do it it gets labeled as "misplaced loyalty" thus they should get sent back. Not saying that this is going on here on this thread but something that I have notice through the years.


Other than "Irish bars" and the like, how are 'Europeans keeping to themselves' like that? I hear of Korean towns, Japanese towns, etc... but not Spain town, or Italian village..
Plus with my experiences with Europeans compared to South American and Asian immigrants, is that the former group is MORE likely to not only integrate but learn the language.


Show me why there is someone making $15k a year and still reproducing? Maybe getting a wife/husband to combine incomes and bills, but why the hell are we looking to accomadate those who make poor life decissions and reproduce before they can afford to? Sadly, people are no longer looking at raising a kid or two like purchasing a car. Who would seriously say its a good idea to have a baby when they make so little? And who says its a good idea to coddle people with this lack of intelligence is beyond stupid.

Then you would get into the arguments of who are we to dictate when someone can/cannot have kids..


I wonder why we need to reform instead of just enforcing the current laws like securing our boarders? When someone shoots up a school or we look at the many gun related crimes that are daily, there is a call for tighter restrictions on LEGAL gun owners. When liberals love to say the rich dont pay their "fair share", the cry is to make it MORE restrictive for those people that do follow the law. But sense every single "undocumented person" is already breaking the law once, some several times over, we want to call for lifting restrictions for EVERYONE? Its insane.

Exactly. We already have laws on the books for this, but its politicans and lawyers who are making it harder and harder to enforce them.


All you have to do is look at the news coming from the UK and you can tell that. It's either the Roma that are coming from Eastern Europe and start receiving benefits or the Muslims that come there and start receiving benefits and wanting to change the laws.


That is another matter entirely. And as my Mother got twice, bumped down the waiting list for a house after getting unemployed cause of illegals over there getting put to the head of the line is a very sore subject..


I would contend the laws in place put us partially in the situation we're in. We've essentially created for ourselves yet another black market, but rather than dealing in illicit goods and services we're now dealing in human resources. I could go on to speculate the various reasons why an immigrant would choose to remain undocumented but I think it's fair to quite simply state that they don't entirely feel they're fully welcome here. In a sense it's very similar to homosexuals in the military prior to the DADT repeal.

So we should change the laws to make them feel more welcome?


Immigrants coming here illegal or legal need to A) Learn English B) Work. At least here in the San Gabriel Valley we have ALOT of Chinese here and it looks like Chinatown all over, but the majority of them know basic English. But when I go to other places around California there are a large amount of Hispanics that DO NOT SPEAK English. Even my neighbor's family that came here from Mexico can speak passable English. She might have to get confirmation on a word or two but it's fine. But if you come here then learn to speak English.

I have heard of some areas in Texas/new mexico, where if you Don't speak Spanish/portugeese, you ain't getting work, just cause they have so many Immigrants there who Don't speak English.. IMO that is wrong.



What would be the case is that we would take the fear of discovery and prosecution out of the equation, and allow them a means to contribute to our economy honestly.

But why should we take the fear of being prosecuted out of the equation? Is that NOT granting them amnesty for being here illegally?


Speaking English as a requirement for being a citizen? Is that in the constitution or something where did I missed that? I've been a US citizen all my life but only for the past 10 have come to develop a basic understading of the language, I'm close to 40. I have lived more years of my life not knowing english than knowing, did that made me less of a citizen?

It should be. I know when i was stationed overseas and met many fellow brits from Africa, i got routinely told that certain countries over there DO require you to speak the local language when taking your tests or filling out your paperwork for citizenship in their country. So why should we not do the same?
Is it out of being politically correct "oh we can't force them to learn our language" or is it more out of "What do we consider our native language"??


Honestly not a big fan of the fees, if I were "king for a day" you'd be reimbursed the money. Just by these people being here working and spending capital they're contributing something positive to the economy. Adding the fee just encourages them to fly under the radar. I would dispense with the cost involvement entirely and only ask in return they consent to a basic background check.

So what of all those who stay in their home countries and pay those fees to get everything done LEGALLY before coming over? Should they also get reimbursed? Or only done for those here illegally cause it would be a hardship on them?

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 10:09 PM
I would consider another means of sourcing, possibly even subsidizing if necessary, the costs, and probably figuring out how to reduce it as well.

Well the fees are determined by the Dept. of State so there is no say so on that. There is just pay this or nothing gets processed, no negotiation at all. That's for all visas as well. I applied for my then gf now wife to come to the USA on a tourist visa and I had to shell OUT over $200 out of pocket, not to mention the hotel and plane tickets. Just for her to go there for a 5 minute interview and they tell her NO because she didn't work and had no way to prove that she would come back. Even though she printed off the round trip tickets already paid for that I bought for her.

Then if they deny the visa (any type of visa) you don't get the money back. You just cough it up as a lost.

CYBERFX1024
12-03-2013, 10:19 PM
It should be. I know when i was stationed overseas and met many fellow brits from Africa, i got routinely told that certain countries over there DO require you to speak the local language when taking your tests or filling out your paperwork for citizenship in their country. So why should we not do the same?
Is it out of being politically correct "oh we can't force them to learn our language" or is it more out of "What do we consider our native language"??

When I was in Afghanistan I used to work with a few Scots and I dare say that what they spoke was NO WHERE NEAR ENGLISH. I have met Chinese people here that can hardly speak English that I can understand better than the Scots I worked with.

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 10:42 PM
Well the fees are determined by the Dept. of State so there is no say so on that. There is just pay this or nothing gets processed, no negotiation at all. That's for all visas as well. I applied for my then gf now wife to come to the USA on a tourist visa and I had to shell OUT over $200 out of pocket, not to mention the hotel and plane tickets. Just for her to go there for a 5 minute interview and they tell her NO because she didn't work and had no way to prove that she would come back. Even though she printed off the round trip tickets already paid for that I bought for her.

Then if they deny the visa (any type of visa) you don't get the money back. You just cough it up as a lost.

Yes, I was waxing hypothetical under the "king for a day" scenario, and given such authority, everything immigration related would be moved from the Federal to the State levels. They become the ones to determine necessary background checks and they decide how to go about floating those costs. As I'm speaking to the abstract at the moment I would not expect these ideas to become necessarily the reality, but I would state confidently for immigration reform to work in the long term a means to declare immigrant status legally would have to factor in the cost elements. I think it fair to say there are some immigrants who would experience difficulty affording that $1050 cost. The question then becomes do we subsidize the few or create an alternative means to fund the operational costs involved with the process?

AJBIGJ
12-03-2013, 10:53 PM
So what of all those who stay in their home countries and pay those fees to get everything done LEGALLY before coming over? Should they also get reimbursed? Or only done for those here illegally cause it would be a hardship on them?

To address the first question you asked, I would seek to develop a policy that is less intimidating for aspiring immigrants yes.

As to the latter set of questions, it would apply to all and be grandfathered, my preference would be to have it be controlled at the state rather than the Federal level. The states stand to benefit the most if they implement an effective policy because it is their economy specifically that will be affected the most. How the reimbursements get funded would fall along similar lines, but doesn't necessarily fall into defaulting into a taxpayer subsidy. The state of Alaska actually pays its citizens to live there, and that isn't subsidized directly by any system of government taxation, it is actually the Alaskan Oil companies that foot the bill. I will grant the hike in price for their products sold may be considered a form of indirect taxation, but we pay for them of our own free will. I imagine innovative states can identify innovative solution mechanisms that work to both their own benefits and allows immigrants to become effective contributors to society.

garhkal
12-04-2013, 04:37 AM
When I was in Afghanistan I used to work with a few Scots and I dare say that what they spoke was NO WHERE NEAR ENGLISH. I have met Chinese people here that can hardly speak English that I can understand better than the Scots I worked with.

Very true. Heck, depending on where in England someone is from, you would be better off trying to decipher someone from Tembucktoo (talking about manchester and liverpool!!)


Yes, I was waxing hypothetical under the "king for a day" scenario, and given such authority, everything immigration related would be moved from the Federal to the State levels. They become the ones to determine necessary background checks and they decide how to go about floating those costs. As I'm speaking to the abstract at the moment I would not expect these ideas to become necessarily the reality, but I would state confidently for immigration reform to work in the long term a means to declare immigrant status legally would have to factor in the cost elements. I think it fair to say there are some immigrants who would experience difficulty affording that $1050 cost. The question then becomes do we subsidize the few or create an alternative means to fund the operational costs involved with the process?

Why put it to state level? Immigration is a federal issue, not state level one..
As for the subsidies, i would be against them.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 05:47 AM
Very true. Heck, depending on where in England someone is from, you would be better off trying to decipher someone from Tembucktoo (talking about manchester and liverpool!!)

Why put it to state level? Immigration is a federal issue, not state level one..
As for the subsidies, i would be against them.
Now where in the US Constitution does it define immigration as a duty specifically and solely of the Federal Government?

In short, Federalism 101, the individual states bear the specific benefit (or burden) of their economies at the local level and are best equipped to deal with it in an effective manner. I'm not particularly inclined towards government induced subsidies myself but when the alternative is the creation of a black market dealing specifically in human beings I prefer it in the absence of no viable alternative as a funding mechanism. Here again the states become the test bed for what is effective and what isn't where policy is concerned, and the funding mechanisms, and they have a higher likelihood of finding an Alaska-type solution that doesn't cost its constituents a cent that the do not give voluntarily for the the good and services produced in their local economies. I'm sure North Dakota at the very least could probably easily find a way to fund it that doesn't cost North Dakotans a cent in state taxation. I'm sure that's also the tip of the iceberg where the states are concerned. Since I am not a state resident living in every state in the United States I am, suffice it to say, very ill-equipped to best determine for them what would be the optimal solution for effectively integrating undocumented immigrants into their local economies. If I can't find a solution for them I hold no faith in our Federal Government to do likewise.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 11:06 AM
Typical conservative. Always bringing up Obamacare. I was being sarcastic the previous time I said "typical conservative," because I don't like doing it. But this time around? Nope. Conservatives love to bring up Obamacare when talking to a liberal, even when the discussion at hand is about something that's the furthest thing from it.Obamacare example was for the point that liberals force things upon the public because "we know whats best for you" is their typical stance. I will admit, progressive GOP will do the same thing.


What you said appeared to imply that Europeans were justified in the conquest of the Americas, because of Native Americans killing each other. If that's not what you were saying, then what were you saying?
Not "justified", just making the statement that what Europeans did was not wipe out a peaceful group of people. Mistakes were made, but that doesnt mean they have to be rectified now.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 11:09 AM
I would contend the laws in place put us partially in the situation we're in. We've essentially created for ourselves yet another black market, but rather than dealing in illicit goods and services we're now dealing in human resources. I could go on to speculate the various reasons why an immigrant would choose to remain undocumented but I think it's fair to quite simply state that they don't entirely feel they're fully welcome here. In a sense it's very similar to homosexuals in the military prior to the DADT repeal.

Illegals, sure, I can see how they feel rejected, but thats because they are breaking the law.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 11:13 AM
European immigrants, at the time, were visually indistinguishable from WASPs and were accepted into the fold by the next generation that didn't have accents.

So "Gangs of New York" had no historical backround what so ever?

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 12:28 PM
Illegals, sure, I can see how they feel rejected, but thats because they are breaking the law.

So you, who chooses Ron Paul as an avatar, are under the impression there is no such thing as ill-conceived laws in our books?

Let's apply some simple pragmatism in our assessment here, we have these laws in the books, what becomes the net effect?

Do they encourage or discourage the individual who seeks opportunity under the best of intentions inside our country to do so aboveboard and legitimitely? Well there are somewhat reliable metrics to answer that, we have a whole slew of undocumented immigrants in this country.

Would we be or would we not be better off if 95% of those immigrants came forward and became documented immigrants in this country? That if anything is rhetorical because I don't think anyone is of the impression that having the large number of immigrants coming here under questionable auspices is helpful for our society compared to an alternative of being in this country legitimately.

The question then becomes, what is the most efficient, most fair methodology to increase the ratio of documented to undocumented immigrants working inside this country?

The answer some might choose is a full out witch hunt, followed by mass deportations. I would think any proponents of such a methodology would only have the complaint about the "Edward Snowden" leaks is that the methods our government uses are insufficient with regards to getting this accomplished.

I would prefer a method that makes it relatively simple to visit this country, work in this country, and contribute positively to the economy in this country, as is possible. Rather than achieve the better ratio by force I prefer to achieve the ratio by incentivizing doing the process legitimately. It is important here we not confuse legitimacy with blanket citizenship, these people don't get to vote in our elections or become dependent on our welfare systems. What it does is incentivize having our guests declare themselves and their intentions while they live in this country so it becomes easier to weed out the true threats from the people whose simple presence on our soil actually is more helpful to our local economies than hurtful.

The first element is the obvious elephant in the room of how to address the cost elements. Those background checks do cost capital resources, I personally prefer to delegate the commercial regulatory authority to the individual states in such regards for reasons I have stated previously. The most simple methodology that requires not an additional taxpayer cent is to have the local businesses, unions, or what not, be held responsible for the screening elements of the individuals as well as financially responsible for the good conduct of the people they are hiring. As I don't have the optimal level of insight for every state of the union's economic affairs I would not portend to state this is the optimal method in all contingencies, so I would prefer the state governments, who get to live with the results, through their individual legislatures, determine the best way to address the complexity of the issue under their own areas of responsibility.

Stalwart
12-04-2013, 01:03 PM
Not "justified", just making the statement that what Europeans did was not wipe out a peaceful group of people. Mistakes were made, but that doesnt mean they have to be rectified now.

I do agree with you on that point.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 01:06 PM
So you, who chooses Ron Paul as an avatar, are under the impression there is no such thing as ill-conceived laws in our books?

Let's apply some simple pragmatism in our assessment here, we have these laws in the books, what becomes the net effect?
Since you want to bring up Paul, this is his stance.

PERRY: [to Paul]: I think it's time for a 21st century Monroe Doctrine. We know that Hamas and Hezbollah are working in Mexico. As the President , I will promise you one thing, that border will be shut down, and it will be secure.
PAUL: Yes, we do have a national responsibility for our borders. We need better immigration services, obviously. But if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. So if you give easy road to citizenship, you're going to have more illegals. If you have a weak economy, which is understandable and we should have prevented, that's understandable. But mandating to the states that we have to provide free medical care and free education, that's a great burden to all the border states. So I would say eliminate all these benefits and talk about eliminating the welfare state because it's detrimental not only to here but the people that come because that's the incentive to bring their families with them. Which is my point.


Do they encourage or discourage the individual who seeks opportunity under the best of intentions inside our country to do so aboveboard and legitimitely, well there are somewhat reliable metrics to answer that, we have a whole slew of undocumented immigrants in this country.Because of the welfare state.


Would we be or would we not be better off if 95% of those immigrants came forward and became documented immigrants in this country? That if anything is rhetorical because I don't think anyone is of the impression that having the large number of immigrants coming here under questionable auspices is helpful for our society compared to an alternative of being in this country legitimately.If you can show they are not takers, and actual producers, sure. But with millions of jobs open in the US and many more millions of people not applying for them, my money is on that fact that they will either be takers or force others to be takers when even less jobs are availible.


The question then becomes, what is the most efficient, most fair methodology to increase the ratio of documented to undocumented immigrants working inside this country?Secure the boarders with the troops we have spread accross the world and attrition.


The answer some might choose is a full out witch hunt, followed by mass deportations. I would think any proponents of such a methodology would only have the complaint about the "Edward Snowden" leaks is that the methods our government uses are insufficient with regards to getting this accomplished.If we save money from bringing out troops home, a slow methodical attrition program could be viable. Plus getting rid of handouts. If a state wants to keep up the welfare to illegals, that is their own choice, but then they are bared from recieving help from the fed for providing handouts to illegals.


I would prefer a method that makes it relatively simple to visit this country, work in this country, and contribute positively to the economy in this country, as is possible. Rather than achieve the better ratio by force I prefer to achieve the ratio by incentivizing doing the process legitimately. It is important here we not confuse legitimacy with blanket citizenship, these people don't get to vote in our elections or become dependent on our welfare systems. What it does is incentivize having our guests declare themselves and their intentions while they live in this country so it becomes easier to weed out the true threats from the people whose simple presence on our soil actually is more helpful to our local economies than hurtful. Agreed as long as states like CA stop getting government funds to support their welfare state and refuge cities like LA and San Fran.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 01:31 PM
Since you want to bring up Paul, this is his stance.
Which is my point.

Because of the welfare state.

If you can show they are not takers, and actual producers, sure. But with millions of jobs open in the US and many more millions of people not applying for them, my money is on that fact that they will either be takers or force others to be takers when even less jobs are availible.

Secure the boarders with the troops we have spread accross the world and attrition.

If we save money from bringing out troops home, a slow methodical attrition program could be viable. Plus getting rid of handouts. If a state wants to keep up the welfare to illegals, that is their own choice, but then they are bared from recieving help from the fed for providing handouts to illegals.

Agreed as long as states like CA stop getting government funds to support their welfare state and refuge cities like LA and San Fran.

I take it you haven't read all of his books on the matter, he was trying to satisfy the "Conservative" base in the primaries by telling them the parts they like to hear, his position is far more nuanced than simply border security, and a lot of it involves the principle of freedom to travel, this aside because it's also not the point.

You come from the belief that people immigrate to the US in order to become adopted under the socialized welfare state, I'm sure this is true to an extent (especially California) but I would contend more come to the US for the chance to work and to
live without fear of the environment they came from. There are plenty of more "socialized" countries nearby that are similar distance-wise and easier to enter into if they just headed South rather than North.

Sure we could augment our National Guard's capability a bit by reducing our involvements overseas, and I am a proponent of the idea, especially for deterring terrorist activities in the US. However, an ethical question comes into play when employing rifles against hungry, defenseless families, nor does it help us with the problem of the substantial number of individuals who already reside here.

As for the welfare itself, if California wants to take all of its undocumented immigrants, bring them to legitimacy status, and support them on their welfare rosters, and remain solvent in the process I say go right ahead, just don't expect Federal bailouts if everything does not go according to plan. Either way, if the immigrants are not also citizens, they have no vote to demand welfare benefits, that is something citizens will decide to give or not give.

As far as getting rid of the welfare as a means to attrite, well, I don't expect that will even have a significant effect if it were even plausible politically to get rid of. It would only work for those that are here solely because they want to become dependent on our government systems, I'd say that is not the majority of immigrants at least in terms of where immigrants reside.

Rainmaker
12-04-2013, 02:10 PM
European immigrants, at the time, were visually indistinguishable from WASPs and were accepted into the fold by the next generation that didn't have accents.

All White People looks alike.

imnohero
12-04-2013, 02:34 PM
European immigrants, at the time, were visually indistinguishable from WASPs and were accepted into the fold by the next generation that didn't have accents.

I missed this yesterday. But I got a good laugh when I saw it. It's maybe partly true, but not really. The elite WASPs didn't like the white immigrants any more than they liked blacks or anyone else.

CYBERFX1024
12-04-2013, 03:05 PM
As for the welfare itself, if California wants to take all of its undocumented immigrants, bring them to legitimacy status, and support them on their welfare rosters, and remain solvent in the process I say go right ahead, just don't expect Federal bailouts if everything does not go according to plan. Either way, if the immigrants are not also citizens, they have no vote to demand welfare benefits, that is something citizens will decide to give or not give.
As far as getting rid of the welfare as a means to attrite, well, I don't expect that will even have a significant effect if it were even plausible politically to get rid of. It would only work for those that are here solely because they want to become dependent on our government systems, I'd say that is not the majority of immigrants at least in terms of where immigrants reside.

The problem in that statement right there is that California is NOT solvent at all. They have a balanced budget this year only due to raising the taxes on the top 2% of people in the state and making that retroactive for 3 years. Then and only then were they able to balance their budget. But the majority of local and state agencies here in California cater to the illegal immigrants and even give them rights and privileges that citizens are not able to take advantage of. As a illegal immigrant here in California you have more rights than a citizen or legal immigrant has.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 03:13 PM
I take it you haven't read all of his books on the matter, he was trying to satisfy the "Conservative" base in the primaries by telling them the parts they like to hear, his position is far more nuanced than simply border security, and a lot of it involves the principle of freedom to travel, this aside because it's also not the point.I have read all of his quotes about the matter. Yes, he believes that any wall to hold people out, can also be used to hold people in, like those with money that try to leave cause of taxation and regulations. He also believes that the way to solve the "problem" is with a strong economy, one that is actually looking for workers to fill jobs. That is not the case right now. He doesnt believe in full rounding up whitch hunt and deportation, nor does he want amnesty.


You come from the belief that people immigrate to the US in order to become adopted under the socialized welfare state, I'm sure this is true to an extent (especially California) but I would contend more come to the US for the chance to work and to live without fear of the environment they came from. There are plenty of more "socialized" countries nearby that are similar distance-wise and easier to enter into if they just headed South rather than North.
Agreed, but their penalty for being illegal is much more sever than it is in the US.


Sure we could augment our National Guard's capability a bit by reducing our involvements overseas, and I am a proponent of the idea, especially for deterring terrorist activities in the US. However, an ethical question comes into play when employing rifles against hungry, defenseless families, nor does it help us with the problem of the substantial number of individuals who already reside here.Sadly, your belief that our involvment in other countries keeps us safe from terrorist. We've tried that for decades and the terrorist are just getting stronger and bigger resolve to carry out more acts of violence. Plus, we dont only leave our boarders open, we hand those terrorist in the other countries easy targets when all the terrorist has to do is walk out of his hut and shoot an American that thinks he is their friend. We have seen this happen so many times in Afghanistan.


As for the welfare itself, if California wants to take all of its undocumented immigrants, bring them to legitimacy status, and support them on their welfare rosters, and remain solvent in the process I say go right ahead, just don't expect Federal bailouts if everything does not go according to plan. Either way, if the immigrants are not also citizens, they have no vote to demand welfare benefits, that is something citizens will decide to give or not give. Which they are trying to do because they believe the feds will back them up.


As far as getting rid of the welfare as a means to attrite, well, I don't expect that will even have a significant effect if it were even plausible politically to get rid of. It would only work for those that are here solely because they want to become dependent on our government systems, I'd say that is not the majority of immigrants at least in terms of where immigrants reside.
So, with all the hoopla about walmart workers "needing" $15/hr for a "liveable wage" to feed a family of four, you are under the impression that illegals with their families, getting $2/hr in the fields are living easily enough and not collecting welfare? Because they are even sending a portion of income money back to even more family members still in the origional countries and that is another way our country is hurting because not all of the illegals paycheck is being spent in the states.

Juggs
12-04-2013, 03:15 PM
The problem in that statement right there is that California is NOT solvent at all. They have a balanced budget this year only due to raising the taxes on the top 2% of people in the state and making that retroactive for 3 years. Then and only then were they able to balance their budget. But the majority of local and state agencies here in California cater to the illegal immigrants and even give them rights and privileges that citizens are not able to take advantage of. As a illegal immigrant here in California you have more rights than a citizen or legal immigrant has.

Yet so many liberal Californians try to use their state as a gleaming example of what every state should be.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 03:15 PM
I missed this yesterday. But I got a good laugh when I saw it. It's maybe partly true, but not really. The elite WASPs didn't like the white immigrants any more than they liked blacks or anyone else.

Liked them less than blacks actually. Once off the boat from ireland, they were enslaved into the army to fight and die for the "freedom" of the blacks as the propaganda went. After the war, the dangerous jobs were given mostly to the irish immagrints before blacks.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 03:17 PM
The problem in that statement right there is that California is NOT solvent at all. They have a balanced budget this year only due to raising the taxes on the top 2% of people in the state and making that retroactive for 3 years. Then and only then were they able to balance their budget. But the majority of local and state agencies here in California cater to the illegal immigrants and even give them rights and privileges that citizens are not able to take advantage of. As a illegal immigrant here in California you have more rights than a citizen or legal immigrant has.

And they took money from the feds to build their own obamacare website and didnt really spend it on the website, this helped with their coffers as well.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 04:44 PM
I have read all of his quotes about the matter. Yes, he believes that any wall to hold people out, can also be used to hold people in, like those with money that try to leave cause of taxation and regulations. He also believes that the way to solve the "problem" is with a strong economy, one that is actually looking for workers to fill jobs. That is not the case right now. He doesnt believe in full rounding up whitch hunt and deportation, nor does he want amnesty.

Agreed, but their penalty for being illegal is much more sever than it is in the US.

Sadly, your belief that our involvment in other countries keeps us safe from terrorist. We've tried that for decades and the terrorist are just getting stronger and bigger resolve to carry out more acts of violence. Plus, we dont only leave our boarders open, we hand those terrorist in the other countries easy targets when all the terrorist has to do is walk out of his hut and shoot an American that thinks he is their friend. We have seen this happen so many times in Afghanistan.

Which they are trying to do because they believe the feds will back them up.

So, with all the hoopla about walmart workers "needing" $15/hr for a "liveable wage" to feed a family of four, you are under the impression that illegals with their families, getting $2/hr in the fields are living easily enough and not collecting welfare? Because they are even sending a portion of income money back to even more family members still in the origional countries and that is another way our country is hurting because not all of the illegals paycheck is being spent in the states.

I definitely am not one who holds the belief that foreign intervention in other nation's civil wars keep the US safe, I don't know what led you to any idea to the contrary. I've been beating the non-interventionist drum long before it became cool with the NSA leaks and the Syria debate.

The beautiful thing about this whole negotiation process is that the supposed "left" has more skin in the game already than the "right", if they go for the whole enchilada and try to autoconvert every undocumented immigrant into full US citizens with full welfare benefits (which I see very little evidence that even they want a blanket amnesty). Other than many Libertarians and your occasional Rubio-esque Conservatives, they need every ally they can get to get these piecemeal measures passed.

California could promise universal welfare benefits and could petition the Federal government to financially back that self-destructive decision, but a Federal Bill with that kind of a rider will get eaten alive in the Legislature, unless 2014 flips the demographics of the house 180 degrees to a reversal that makes even 2010 look like a minor change by comparison. As has been discussed previously, the bill that promises the whole shabang that might please the most far left advocates will never go up in the House in its entirety, Boehner is actually doing a pretty decent job in breaking it into chunks that can be swallowed if the discussion about it is truly honest.

Me personally, as a matter of simple practicality I think a discussion that will come up is whether Federal minimum wage laws even apply towards non-Citizens, if we really want to encourage Undocumented Immigrants to reveal themselves, there will have to be a mechanism in place to allow them to keep the jobs they were doing before they came out in the open. If we force farmers offering reduced wages for their immigrant hirees to increase them after the immigrants are documented, I can guarantee those jobs won't be waiting for every single one of them after they become "documented". Otherwise I would expect a similar result to the President's "You can keep your plan" promise but with employment rather than healthcare.

I hold the opinion if they're here working in the states working at $2 an hour they are somehow making it work. Otherwise how would you subsidize with Federal or State dollars the welfare of the individual while still allowing them to remain "undocumented"? Have you actually worked in government, of any variety, at all? (Another rhetorical question, I just don't think you've really thought through those statements about being on welfare while simultaneously being an undocumented immigrant, absent pure fraud that is pretty much impossible).

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 04:55 PM
The problem in that statement right there is that California is NOT solvent at all. They have a balanced budget this year only due to raising the taxes on the top 2% of people in the state and making that retroactive for 3 years. Then and only then were they able to balance their budget. But the majority of local and state agencies here in California cater to the illegal immigrants and even give them rights and privileges that citizens are not able to take advantage of. As a illegal immigrant here in California you have more rights than a citizen or legal immigrant has.

I don't disagree with your statement at all, I would say such a supposition is at best, a pipe dream. I just don't mind giving them the freedom to make that decision based on what their constituency wants as I am not a resident, as you have more skin in the game I can see how you would feel differently.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-04-2013, 05:00 PM
I definitely am not one who holds the belief that foreign intervention in other nation's civil wars keep the US safe, I don't know what led you to any idea to the contrary. I've been beating the non-interventionist drum long before it became cool with the NSA leaks and the Syria debate. When you said keeping our troops overseas deters terrorism in the states. Not just non-intervention, but complete withdraw of our troops. 9/11 was because of our presences in Saudi, as stated by Osama.


The beautiful thing about this whole negotiation process is that the supposed "left" has more skin in the game already than the "right", if they go for the whole enchilada and try to autoconvert every undocumented immigrant into full US citizens with full welfare benefits (which I see very little evidence that even they want a blanket amnesty). Other than many Libertarians and your occasional Rubio-esque Conservatives, they need every ally they can get to get these piecemeal measures passed. No argement there.


California could promise universal welfare benefits and could petition the Federal government to financially back that self-destructive decision, but a Federal Bill with that kind of a rider will get eaten alive in the Legislature, unless 2014 flips the demographics of the house 180 degrees to a reversal that makes even 2010 look like a minor change by comparison. As has been discussed sooner, the bill that promises the whole shabang that might please the most far left advocates will never go up in the House in its entirety, Boehner is actually doing a pretty decent job in breaking it into chunks that can be swallowed if the discussion about it is truly honest.

Me personally, as a matter of simple practicality I think a discussion that will come up is whether Federal minimum wage laws even apply towards non-Citizens, if we really want to encourage Undocumented Immigrants to reveal themselves, there will have to be a mechanism in place to allow them to keep the jobs they were doing before they came out in the open. If we force farmers offering reduced wages for their immigrant hirees to increase them after the immigrants are documented, I can guarantee those jobs won't be waiting for every single one of them after they become "documented". Otherwise I would expect a similar result to the President's "You can keep your plan" promise but with employment rather than healthcare.Bad part about the second paragraph, it will mean the price of food will go up...just like it did when we started burning corn for fuel instead of harvesting our natural resources. Now we lowered the supply of food AND gas, which makes food prices go up twice.


I hold the opinion if they're here working in the states working at $2 an hour they are somehow making it work. Otherwise how would you subsidize with Federal or State dollars the welfare of the individual while still allowing them to remain "undocumented"? Have you actually worked in government, of any variety, at all? (Another rhetorical question, I just don't think you've really thought through those statements about being on welfare while simultaneously being an undocumented immigrant, absent pure fraud that is pretty much impossible).
So, sanctuary cities like LA and San Fran a like are getting illegals to "document" themselves while they stay illegal? These liberal cespools are not letting their future voting blocks die on the street. But if they truly arent subsidising illegals with food stamps, then there needs to be a report about how $15/hr isnt truly a liveable wage when you have people doing it on their own for $2/hr. One of these situations is a lie from the left, if not both, so I would love to hear an explaination from a liberal about how these two contridictions are capable of existing at the same time.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 05:04 PM
When you said keeping our troops overseas deters terrorism in the states. Not just non-intervention, but complete withdraw of our troops. 9/11 was because of our presences in Saudi, as stated by Osama.

You misread my comments, I said I'm all for reducing our footprint overseas, and I will add to every extent possible. I have to realistically state that not every voter is equally convinced of the idea however.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 05:08 PM
Bad part about the second paragraph, it will mean the price of food will go up...just like it did when we started burning corn for fuel instead of harvesting our natural resources. Now we lowered the supply of food AND gas, which makes food prices go up twice.

So, sanctuary cities like LA and San Fran a like are getting illegals to "document" themselves while they stay illegal? These liberal cespools are not letting their future voting blocks die on the street. But if they truly arent subsidising illegals with food stamps, then there needs to be a report about how $15/hr isnt truly a liveable wage when you have people doing it on their own for $2/hr. One of these situations is a lie from the left, if not both, so I would love to hear an explaination from a liberal about how these two contridictions are capable of existing at the same time.

That would be the net effects of trying to increase the wages yes, a battle advocates would have to fight separately.

I'm sure there is a degree of fraud of government involved with the process, but I would state the more likely scenario, that when individual working sub-minimum wage rates do need the help, they're probably usually not getting it directly from government sources but from other sources which give them the means. I'm sure the illicit substances black market may occasionally be a part of that equation as well.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 05:19 PM
Not surprisingly, others have done a little of the intellectual gruntwork for us:

Illegal Immigrants on Welfare:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/20/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-less-2-percent-illegals-are-pic/

Bunch
12-04-2013, 05:40 PM
Not surprisingly, others have done a little of the intellectual gruntwork for us:

Illegal Immigrants on Welfare:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/20/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-less-2-percent-illegals-are-pic/

Just like much of the information regurgited by many on the right....

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 05:56 PM
Just like much of the information regurgited by many on the right....

And academics for that matter, original independent thoughts are few and far between among humankind these days, and generally discredited as lunacy when presented completely unsupported by the intellectual precedents set by others who've done the factfinding beforehand.

The key difference is when individuals provide independent analysis based on their impression of the preceeding sources, in a sensible fashion. I've found very few individuals from any side of an argument with the ability to do this, far fewer that do it consistently.

Bunch
12-04-2013, 06:10 PM
And academics for that matter, original independent thoughts are few and far between among humankind these days, and generally discredited as lunacy when presented completely unsupported by the intellectual precedents set by others who've done the factfinding beforehand.

The key difference is when individuals provide independent analysis based on their impression of the preceeding sources, in a sensible fashion. I've found very few individuals from any side of an argument with the ability to do this, far fewer that do it consistently.

Lets say what you say is true , which I mostly agree. Then what follows is sentiment and emotion that drives the arguement of the person stating the case, and thats where the people on the right usually don't connect well with the majority of the people, specially in these type of issues.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 06:21 PM
Lets say what you say is true , which I mostly agree. Then what follows is sentiment and emotion that drives the arguement of the person stating the case, and thats where the people on the right usually don't connect well with the majority of the people, specially in these type of issues.

If the statement you're making is that there's a whole lot of hyperbole and demagoguery coming out of certain elements of this discussion I tend to agree with that assessment.

Bunch
12-04-2013, 06:27 PM
If the statement you're making is that there's a whole lot of hyperbole and demagoguery coming out of certain elements of this discussion I tend to agree with that assessment.

I will kick it up a notch and go ahead and say that there is a level of racism and xenophobia that drives the sentiment and emotions of those making the case on the right, I won't go as far as to say that it's on the mainstream right where the majority of the right resides but definately is there and it isn't a few fringe extremist either is a very sizable group.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 06:36 PM
I will kick it up a notch and go ahead and say that there is a level of racism and xenophobia that drives the sentiment and emotions of those making the case on the right, I won't go as far as to say that it's on the mainstream right where the majority of the right resides but definately is there and it isn't a few fringe extremist either is a very sizable group.

I would say xenophobia might be part of the equation but I think the larger part is the simple hyperbole in making the generalization that all or even most illegal immigrants are simply showing up to get US handouts, which I think is significantly demagoguing the issue. I can't say I know a lot of undocumented immigrants but simple logic and a healthy suspicion of the misleading nature of statistics tells me that more than likely, if they've bothered to come here in the first place, they're probably somewhat willing to work for a living.

Rainmaker
12-04-2013, 09:02 PM
Now where in the US Constitution does it define immigration as a duty specifically and solely of the Federal Government?

In short, Federalism 101, the individual states bear the specific benefit (or burden) of their economies at the local level and are best equipped to deal with it in an effective manner. I'm not particularly inclined towards government induced subsidies myself but when the alternative is the creation of a black market dealing specifically in human beings I prefer it in the absence of no viable alternative as a funding mechanism. Here again the states become the test bed for what is effective and what isn't where policy is concerned, and the funding mechanisms, and they have a higher likelihood of finding an Alaska-type solution that doesn't cost its constituents a cent that the do not give voluntarily for the the good and services produced in their local economies. I'm sure North Dakota at the very least could probably easily find a way to fund it that doesn't cost North Dakotans a cent in state taxation. I'm sure that's also the tip of the iceberg where the states are concerned. Since I am not a state resident living in every state in the United States I am, suffice it to say, very ill-equipped to best determine for them what would be the optimal solution for effectively integrating undocumented immigrants into their local economies. If I can't find a solution for them I hold no faith in our Federal Government to do likewise.

Too many .gov agencies owe their existance and are making too much money off of it. The Feds don't want the states to find a "solution" to the "problem". That's why "My People" Holder's justice dept brings suit against the states whenever they attempt to enforce the law of the land. Divide and Conquer. NomSayin?

efmbman
12-04-2013, 09:20 PM
Now where in the US Constitution does it define immigration as a duty specifically and solely of the Federal Government?

Long thread, so not sure if this was addressed yet...

Wouldn't that be the 14th Amendment, sections 1 and 5?

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 09:29 PM
Long thread, so not sure if this was addressed yet...

Wouldn't that be the 14th Amendment, sections 1 and 5?
Specific to the context of the question no, section 1 does protect the individual from violations of rights and to an extent privileges of the individual from even the states, and likewise Congress is the enforcement authority for such. The question I asked was actually satire and rhetorical because obviously state governments have a certain say in how immigration is legislated and enforced, otherwise that Arizona ID business would barely have made it to the Supreme Court because the simple act of the state itself taking any measure regarding immigration would in itself be unconstitutional, if that makes sense.

Edit: by the way the 10th Amendment would cover any confusion in such regard.

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 09:32 PM
Too many .gov agencies owe their existance and are making too much money off of it. The Feds don't want the states to find a "solution" to the "problem". That's why "My People" Holder's justice dept brings suit against the states whenever they attempt to enforce the law of the land. Divide and Conquer. NomSayin?

Sometimes the easiest response is just to nod as if you agree whether it's entirely true or not!:friday:

efmbman
12-04-2013, 09:34 PM
Specific to the context of the question no, section 1 does protect the individual from violations of rights and to an extent privileges of the individual from even the states, and likewise Congress is the enforcement authority for such. The question I asked was actually satire and rhetorical because obviously state governments have a certain say in how immigration is legislated and enforced, otherwise that Arizona ID business never would have made it to the Supreme Court because the simple act of the state itself taking any measure regarding immigration would in itself be unconstitutional, if that makes sense.

Edit: by the way the 9th Amendment would cover any confusion in such regard.

States have the right to dictate how elections (you are talking about the voter ID case?) are conducted (unless I am mistaken about that). I think that is how states are butting into the immigration issue by changing voting eligibility based on the immigration status of people.

garhkal
12-04-2013, 09:37 PM
Now where in the US Constitution does it define immigration as a duty specifically and solely of the Federal Government?

In short, Federalism 101, the individual states bear the specific benefit (or burden) of their economies at the local level and are best equipped to deal with it in an effective manner. I'm not particularly inclined towards government induced subsidies myself but when the alternative is the creation of a black market dealing specifically in human beings I prefer it in the absence of no viable alternative as a funding mechanism. Here again the states become the test bed for what is effective and what isn't where policy is concerned, and the funding mechanisms, and they have a higher likelihood of finding an Alaska-type solution that doesn't cost its constituents a cent that the do not give voluntarily for the the good and services produced in their local economies. I'm sure North Dakota at the very least could probably easily find a way to fund it that doesn't cost North Dakotans a cent in state taxation. I'm sure that's also the tip of the iceberg where the states are concerned. Since I am not a state resident living in every state in the United States I am, suffice it to say, very ill-equipped to best determine for them what would be the optimal solution for effectively integrating undocumented immigrants into their local economies. If I can't find a solution for them I hold no faith in our Federal Government to do likewise.

The big difference between most states and Alaska is that much of alaska gets that 'citizenship' funding via the oil companies drilling there. Many states don't get such a boon, and i doubt the companies would be willing to pony up the cash, to subsidize immigration, just to make it cheaper for foreigners to come here.


Would we be or would we not be better off if 95% of those immigrants came forward and became documented immigrants in this country? That if anything is rhetorical because I don't think anyone is of the impression that having the large number of immigrants coming here under questionable auspices is helpful for our society compared to an alternative of being in this country legitimately.

More immigration would equal more workforce, which in turn would drive our unemployment up. YEs we might see an uptick in taxes raised, but more than what is raised gets spent on immigrants OR is sent back home to their 'home nation' which depletes our spending power.
So all in all, i say it would in no way be better.


I would prefer a method that makes it relatively simple to visit this country, work in this country, and contribute positively to the economy in this country, as is possible. Rather than achieve the better ratio by force I prefer to achieve the ratio by incentivizing doing the process legitimately. It is important here we not confuse legitimacy with blanket citizenship, these people don't get to vote in our elections or become dependent on our welfare systems. What it does is incentivize having our guests declare themselves and their intentions while they live in this country so it becomes easier to weed out the true threats from the people whose simple presence on our soil actually is more helpful to our local economies than hurtful.


Do we not already have one of the fairest/most open methods of people who wish to come here for jobs/schools etc there is in the 'free nations"? Why then make it even easier to come here?


As for the welfare itself, if California wants to take all of its undocumented immigrants, bring them to legitimacy status, and support them on their welfare rosters, and remain solvent in the process I say go right ahead, just don't expect Federal bailouts if everything does not go according to plan. Either way, if the immigrants are not also citizens, they have no vote to demand welfare benefits, that is something citizens will decide to give or not give.

Is that not though making a double standard? States like Texas, Arizona etc who wanted to get Harsher on illegals are all of a suddenly stepping on the feds toes and need to be smacked down. BUT a state who wishes to ignore federal laws is ok, just as long as they don't come expecting hand outs?



Me personally, as a matter of simple practicality I think a discussion that will come up is whether Federal minimum wage laws even apply towards non-Citizens, if we really want to encourage Undocumented Immigrants to reveal themselves, there will have to be a mechanism in place to allow them to keep the jobs they were doing before they came out in the open. If we force farmers offering reduced wages for their immigrant hirees to increase them after the immigrants are documented, I can guarantee those jobs won't be waiting for every single one of them after they become "documented". Otherwise I would expect a similar result to the President's "You can keep your plan" promise but with employment rather than healthcare.

Sorry but i disagree. Why should we make it easier for illegals here ILLEGALLY (hence their names) to keep their illegal jobs (both in the sense they are using either false or forged paperwork, not paying proper taxes etc, and often those jobs are being paid under state and fed minimum wage laws so should not be)?

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 09:40 PM
States have the right to dictate how elections (you are talking about the voter ID case?) are conducted (unless I am mistaken about that). I think that is how states are butting into the immigration issue by changing voting eligibility based on the immigration status of people.

The point is that handling immigration itself is not specifically enumerated in either of those sections as a prerogative of the Federal Government nor specifically prohibited towards the states, thus a gray area exists where such is concerned and the tenth (not the 9th as I mistakenly inferred) would be the prevailing guidance.

efmbman
12-04-2013, 09:41 PM
A follow up to the constitution part: When I referenced the 14th Amendment, I was referring to the first sentence:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Congress is given the power for naturalization in section 5:


The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

efmbman
12-04-2013, 09:42 PM
The point is that handling immigration itself is not specifically enumerated in either of those sections as a prerogative of the Federal Government nor specifically prohibited towards the states, thus a gray area exists where such is concerned and the tenth (not the 9th as I mistakenly inferred) would be the prevailing guidance.

Ok - I gotcha now. Immigration is not a power. Carry on!

AJBIGJ
12-04-2013, 10:01 PM
The big difference between most states and Alaska is that much of alaska gets that 'citizenship' funding via the oil companies drilling there. Many states don't get such a boon, and i doubt the companies would be willing to pony up the cash, to subsidize immigration, just to make it cheaper for foreigners to come here.

More immigration would equal more workforce, which in turn would drive our unemployment up. YEs we might see an uptick in taxes raised, but more than what is raised gets spent on immigrants OR is sent back home to their 'home nation' which depletes our spending power.
So all in all, i say it would in no way be better.

Do we not already have one of the fairest/most open methods of people who wish to come here for jobs/schools etc there is in the 'free nations"? Why then make it even easier to come here?

Is that not though making a double standard? States like Texas, Arizona etc who wanted to get Harsher on illegals are all of a suddenly stepping on the feds toes and need to be smacked down. BUT a state who wishes to ignore federal laws is ok, just as long as they don't come expecting hand outs?

Sorry but i disagree. Why should we make it easier for illegals here ILLEGALLY (hence their names) to keep their illegal jobs (both in the sense they are using either false or forged paperwork, not paying proper taxes etc, and often those jobs are being paid under state and fed minimum wage laws so should not be)?

Economies have a funny way of being difficult to predict. However, prosperity has a funny knack of perpetuating itself as well. In a stagnant economy yes more jobs taken by immigrants would mean fewer jobs for citizens. However, this presumes as well that those same immigrants are not themselves becoming contributors to that local economy, and that the jobs they are taking over they are doing in direct competition with US citizens, which is not a given.

The term "illegal" is a bit problematic in and of itself. I am not of the philosophy that a person should not be able to travel where they wish if they are willing to be respectful of those who have been residing where they travel to, especially if they're contributing in a positive fashion to where they travel to. Part of that respect is to publicly declare themselves and to conduct oneself in a fashion that essentially incorporates the "golden rule" into their own actions. This is an element of morality not a role of a government through the use of force. Use of force is only, in my own opinion, justified when taken to prevent the violation of the rights of one individual against another through their actions.

States are a wonderful entity to get the job done efficiently in this case, well, for reasons I have already stated. If they make it work well for themselves they stand to benefit a great deal from the overall rise in GDP in that state.

The only conflict of standards occurs when a violation of the aforementioned fourteenth amendment occurs from one of those states. It's important to delineate in that section because it includes both the rights and privileges of citizens as well as the specific rights of persons in that subtext. If a state is to violate the life, liberty, or property of persons under its jurisdiction absent the due legal process, or deny equal protections under the law, then it would be in strict violation of that Amendment and probably held accountable through the courts, a process which was seen firsthand under the Arizona law.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 11:17 AM
Lets say what you say is true , which I mostly agree. Then what follows is sentiment and emotion that drives the arguement of the person stating the case, and thats where the people on the right usually don't connect well with the majority of the people, specially in these type of issues.

So what you are saying is libs and lefties love the emotional lie instead of the emotionless truth? Yeah, I will agree with you on that. Thanks for being honest.

Bunch
12-05-2013, 11:23 AM
So what you are saying is libs and lefties love the emotional lie instead of the emotionless truth? Yeah, I will agree with you on that. Thanks for being honest.

LMAO!!!

Try to stay away from intelligent conversation, it hurts your brain.

You are ok for the "libs vs cons" stuff though... Know your limits.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 11:27 AM
Not surprisingly, others have done a little of the intellectual gruntwork for us:

Illegal Immigrants on Welfare:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/20/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-less-2-percent-illegals-are-pic/

This site is silly, they say because the welfare is not cash given to illegals, the second part is misleading...

"Instead, the kind of "welfare" these households received were primarily one of two types: health care or food."

What a crock. Its still welfare and money is still exchanging hands from the government after the gov taxed it from somewhere else. And the other part that the kids of illegals that where born here are the ones that get the welfare so it doesnt count. Are you kidding me? Those kids wouldnt be here if the illegal wasnt here. Its splitting very fine hairs to make the statement seem false by using the emotional side of the debate like Bunch described. Intellectually, not emotionally, we see they are trying to discredit a FACT through semantics.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 11:33 AM
I will kick it up a notch and go ahead and say that there is a level of racism and xenophobia that drives the sentiment and emotions of those making the case on the right, I won't go as far as to say that it's on the mainstream right where the majority of the right resides but definately is there and it isn't a few fringe extremist either is a very sizable group.

What race are mexicans?

But I like how you go to the major emotional base the left uses. Its not the right that brings up race in this matter. The right talks about "illegal immagints using welfare"(boston bombers where on welfare for over 2 years), then the left comes back with focusing on "why does the right hate latinos?" See where the emotion stems from, or are you seriously going to say talking about welfare is emotional over the use of the emotional word "hate"?

Bunch
12-05-2013, 11:35 AM
What race are mexicans?

But I like how you go to the major emotional base the left uses. Its not the right that brings up race in this matter. The right talks about "illegal immagints using welfare"(boston bombers where on welfare for over 2 years), then the left comes back with focusing on "why does the right hate latinos?" See where the emotion stems from, or are you seriously going to say talking about welfare is emotional over the use of the emotional word "hate"?

Again dont even try it... It confuses you... Just like you are right now... Just keep spinning your machine full of rhetoric and you will be ok.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 11:38 AM
Again dont even try it... It confuses you... Just like you are right now... Just keep spinning your machines full of rhetoric and you will be ok.

Yet, what I said, you dont respond to. You just call me confused. Suspicion from my end says you are the one confused, and cant accurately refute my statements. You said it yourself, when it comes to debate, the left wins because it usess emotion to connect with the lofo voters. And as we have seen time and time again, the right has facts to back up most of what it says.

Bunch
12-05-2013, 11:41 AM
Yet, what I said, you dont respond to. You just call me confused. Suspicion from my end says you are the one confused, and cant accurately refute my statements. You said it yourself, when it comes to debate, the left wins because it usess emotion to connect with the lofo voters. And as we have seen time and time again, the right has facts to back up most of what it says.

You are confused. I didn't said that... You said I said that but that don't make it so. The base of your argument and questions of this morning directed at me is due to your wrong interpretation of a comment that I made while having a conversation with another poster.

Thats not my fault but yours...

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 12:18 PM
You are confused. I didn't said that... You said I said that but that don't make it so. The base of your argument and questions of this morning directed at me is due to your wrong interpretation of a comment that I made while having a conversation with another poster.

Thats not my fault but yours...You said the right loses in the debates because it cant connect with voters because they lack the emotional connection.

Bunch
12-05-2013, 12:29 PM
You said the right loses in the debates because it cant connect with voters because they lack the emotional connection.

Wrong again.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 01:56 PM
Wrong again.
So you didnt say this?

Lets say what you say is true , which I mostly agree. Then what follows is sentiment and emotion that drives the arguement of the person stating the case, and thats where the people on the right usually don't connect well with the majority of the people, specially in these type of issues.
So please, how is it that when you were responding to the politicfact post where they essentially refuted the claim that 2% of immagrints work the farm while 40% take welfare by using only emotions and semantics, that I was wrong in interpeting your stance that libs and lefties use emotional rhetoric lies after the people on the right use emotionaless facts?

Bunch
12-05-2013, 02:11 PM
So you didnt say this?

So please, how is it that when you were responding to the politicfact post where they essentially refuted the claim that 2% of immagrints work the farm while 40% take welfare by using only emotions and semantics, that I was wrong in interpeting your stance that libs and lefties use emotional rhetoric lies after the people on the right use emotionaless facts?

I did say that statement that you quoted.

But it wasn't directly in response to the politifact article, it was part of a larger conversation about how individuals or groups present information to the people at large. It didn't involve truth or lies, win or losing, is how information is delivered.

You can be saying the truth but if is not delivered in a way that people can connect with it, for the most part they won't respond to it. The other side of that is that they might not respond to it because they truly believe that the information presented is false.

So I'm not claiming that one side is telling the truth or not, for that you have to analize every specific claim put forth and adjudicate its validity or lack thereof on its own merits. What I did say was that emotion and sentiment can affect the way that information is presented (right or wrong information) and affect the way the information is consumed by others.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 02:46 PM
I did say that statement that you quoted.

But it wasn't directly in response to the politifact article, it was part of a larger conversation about how individuals or groups present information to the people at large. It didn't involve truth or lies, win or losing, is how information is delivered. Cool, thanks for the clarification.


You can be saying the truth but if is not delivered in a way that people can connect with it, for the most part they won't respond to it. The other side of that is that they might not respond to it because they truly believe that the information presented is false.Oh, I know. The truth hurts. Even with numbers and facts, its hard to accept negatives about yourself or your group. Tell a UF fan their team sucks, you might be in for a fight. You bring up drop out rates or the knock out game to blacks, and there is a serious arguement that could ensue.


So I'm not claiming that one side is telling the truth or not, for that you have to analize every specific claim put forth and adjudicate its validity or lack thereof on its own merits. What I'm did say was that emotion and sentiment can affect the way that information is presented (right or wrong information) and affect the way the information is consumed by others.Humans dont like introspective views that show them in a negative light. Totally agreed.

Rainmaker
12-05-2013, 05:14 PM
Cool, thanks for the clarification.

Oh, I know. The truth hurts. Even with numbers and facts, its hard to accept negatives about yourself or your group. Tell a UF fan their team sucks, you might be in for a fight. You bring up drop out rates or the knock out game to blacks, and there is a serious arguement that could ensue.

Humans dont like introspective views that show them in a negative light. Totally agreed.

As a UF Fan. You'll get no argument from Rainmaker on this one. FireWillMuschampdotcom. NomSayin?

garhkal
12-05-2013, 07:33 PM
The term "illegal" is a bit problematic in and of itself. I am not of the philosophy that a person should not be able to travel where they wish if they are willing to be respectful of those who have been residing where they travel to, especially if they're contributing in a positive fashion to where they travel to. Part of that respect is to publicly declare themselves and to conduct oneself in a fashion that essentially incorporates the "golden rule" into their own actions. This is an element of morality not a role of a government through the use of force. Use of force is only, in my own opinion, justified when taken to prevent the violation of the rights of one individual against another through their actions.
.

So borders and laws governing how/when someone can migrate/visit a country should be done away with in your mind..


The only conflict of standards occurs when a violation of the aforementioned fourteenth amendment occurs from one of those states. It's important to delineate in that section because it includes both the rights and privileges of citizens as well as the specific rights of persons in that subtext. If a state is to violate the life, liberty, or property of persons under its jurisdiction absent the due legal process, or deny equal protections under the law, then it would be in strict violation of that Amendment and probably held accountable through the courts, a process which was seen firsthand under the Arizona law.

But do those laws cover illegal immigrants though or just citizens?

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 12:10 PM
So borders and laws governing how/when someone can migrate/visit a country should be done away with in your mind..

But do those laws cover illegal immigrants though or just citizens?

Re-evaluated heavily would be the words I would use, much like the black market created during prohibition, or the war on drugs, or with our current immigration policies, the fact that we use the term "illegal" puts the hard working laborer who can't afford the process of becoming legitimate in the same category as the most violent terrorist, by effect. Logically we know this not to be the case, but immigration policy (not to mention frequently used rhetoric) as it stands really does not discriminate one from the other by itself. They also seem to have a pretty piss poor record of actually stopping the violent terrorists at that, or drugs, or pick your poison. If I desire genuine national security, my first thoughts is we need a policy where we actually discriminate the average Tomas, Juan, or Jorge from the jihadists strapping bombs to their chest. It would be helpful if we gave the former a reason to declare themselves during their visit here that doesn't put them making the ethical decision about whether it is worth having their family with several young children stuck fatherless while they themselves are either deported back to drug lord central or spend time in prison alongside thiefs and murderers for the evil deed of detassling corn for a wage.

As to the latter question, it says "persons", which is important. The word "person" has a specific legal definition that is different from the legal definition of a "citizen". These weren't simple semantics, the drafters of our Constitution (or in this case the post Civil War politicians who conjured the Fourteenth Amendment) knew precisely what they were doing when they wrote it that way.

garhkal
12-06-2013, 07:05 PM
It may seem to be wrote that way but to my view point it should not apply to those in the country illegally. Legal visitors, yes. Those undergoing nationalization, yes. Citizens damn skippy.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 07:38 PM
It may seem to be wrote that way but to my view point it should not apply to those in the country illegally. Legal visitors, yes. Those undergoing nationalization, yes. Citizens damn skippy.

The first part was directed at citizens in fact, which is what makes that Amendment so very interesting, and it broadened beyond simple rights and included the word privileges.

Rights are not a product of governmental generosity, otherwise there would have been nothing wrong, no violations of human rights whatsoever, in pre-Thirteenth Amendment America before slavery was abolished. The government said we could have slaves so nobody's rights were being violated.

Obviously nobody is making the argument that slavery, as long as our government allowed it, is morally justified. For this to be the case, rights must extend beyond what the government recognizes.

As such, a right of persons is also referred to as a "natural right", whether a person believes it is pre-ordained by a creator or ones individual sovereignty, they extend to all people, American, foreign, hell even to terrorists as some would have us believe otherwise. The founders defined it for us in the Declaration as "life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness" and the fourteenth amendment reaffirmed it. The ideology exists as a natural continuation of what is commonly referred to as the "enlightenment period" which was largely put forth by John Locke.

So without question, from the fundamentals under which this nation was built, such rights are guaranteed by our government to persons everywhere throughout the world. As the Constitution only defines what our own government can and can't do that only is a guarantee in areas of our own jurisprudence.