I received (basically) free primary education; am I on the dole? I think the vast majority of the American population has received a similar education; are we already there?
I hope you realize that public education isn't what I am referring to. Nor am I referring to roads or other infrastructure. What I am referring to are the situations where the government decides who gets what. Not things that we are all eligable for. I am anticipationg that you may twist what i have said.
__________________
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
There you go, and my stand, legal yes, . . . break the law, you deserve no rewards and front of the line positions.
You make it a pain to quote you, but it's OK - you've made your position abundantly clear. People who break laws deserve nothing but jail. Gotcha. My rebuttal to that philosophy can be condensed down to a name:
Rosa Parks
Ms. Parks broke a law. She had the audacity to be black and sit in the front of a bus. The law was changed.
That is the first thing you need to understand: The law exists to serve the people, not the people to serve the law. Where a law is found to create more problems than it solves, the solution is the replacement or elimination of that law.
Illegal immigrants are desirable employees because they are cheap and they can't file a grievance. They are easily exploitable. It is the very fact that the law currently states that they are illegal that creates the incentive for criminal organizations - whether families that hire illegal maids or hardened, violent offenders - to retain the services of illegal immigrants.
Eliminating the incentive requires that it be generally lawful for foreigners to work in the US. Pass out tax IDs like candy. Force them to compete with American workers on labor. Make it feasible for immigrants to report illegal working conditions without being punished for doing so.
You expecting me to pay for a prison that benefits you, while insisting that the problems you're trying to solve have no effect on me - that is a socialistic approach to the problem. Closing the borders, putting up walls, establishing federal-level IDs - that is a nationalistic approach. The Tea Party's stance on immigration is nationalistic-socialist, and quite consistent with fundamental Nazi politics.
No, I don't think TeaBaggers are Nazis. However, there are a number of disturbing parallels, and their stance on immigration is quite comparable to that of the Nazi party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep
I hope you realize that public education isn't what I am referring to. Nor am I referring to roads or other infrastructure. What I am referring to are the situations where the government decides who gets what. Not things that we are all eligable for. I am anticipationg that you may twist what i have said.
I realize that you're not referring to infrastructure. I'm questioning why things like public roads and public education should be treated differently from public assistance.
You've suggested that when more than 50% of the population receives such assistance, it will cause severe problems. How close do you think we are now? What will be the nature of these problems? How bad will they be?
The vast majority of people who do utilize public assistance to meet their personal needs do so for less than 5 years. (Incidentally, "school age" typically starts at 5 years. I don't think there is much of a coincidence here.)
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I realize that you're not referring to infrastructure. I'm questioning why things like public roads and public education should be treated differently from public assistance.
Because public roads and public education is available to all. Whether they pay most of the taxes or no taxes. Public assistance is generally offered to those who pay nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival
You've suggested that when more than 50% of the population receives such assistance, it will cause severe problems. How close do you think we are now? What will be the nature of these problems? How bad will they be?
Once the ones who pay nothing get to be more than the 50% then there is no reason for them to not vote for the politicians who will give them more (ie. take more from the others.) After that, it will be down hill quickly. Oh, and we are getting very close, and it will be very bad (getting worse).
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
The alternative I suggested was not jail for illegal immigrants, but taxation. Issue taxpayer IDs, make it legal for American businesses to hire just about anyone. You want a mexican worker, fine - but you're going to pay him at least minimum wage, you're going to report his earnings to the IRS, he's going to get the same lunch breaks as citizens...
I can agree with that. I pass canneries in Salem and trucks full of beans are lined up to off load. That means this huge valley full of a diversity of crops is into their harvest and probably short of pickers once again.
We need these people and have needed them since well prior to WW I. Could we consider fewer exploding muslims and more Mexicans?
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|_____
|Trucks full of Mexicans! ?|"""|.., _o
|_?_?______====|= __|__|?., ] |
"(@ )|(@ )""""""""*(@ )'''|''''(@ )****(@)
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
[QUOTE=rivalarrival;127030]You make it a pain to quote you, but it's OK - you've made your position abundantly clear. People who break laws deserve nothing but jail. Gotcha. My rebuttal to that philosophy can be condensed down to a name:
Rosa Parks
Ms. Parks broke a law. She had the audacity to be black and sit in the front of a bus. The law was changed.
Rosa Parks did NOT break a law, that was bus policy, not a law. They did arrest her but it was not for breaking that law, she would not get off the bus.
This is a seperate issue, Rosa Parks was a CITIZEN of the US, not an immigrant. That was an issue of one group of citizens denying rights to others. This is IMMIGRATION. TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES.
And as you saw later. it was Martin Luther King Jr. who was the primary instrument in the civil rights movement who had PERMITS making his marches and demonstrations LEGAL to create CHANGE in laws and equality amoung citizens. SEPERATE ISSUES!!!
When immigrants become citizens of the US they too deserve equality, no question about it. so much for your touching civil rights try. And this goes right back to the Nazi calling, anyone who is against illegal immigration is NOT against it because they are prejudice against Latinos. As I stated time and again, we need to EASE the efforts and expense needed to make LEGAL immigration possible and discourage ILLEGAL activities rather it be migration or littering or stealing. Not reward criminals.
Because public roads and public education is available to all. Whether they pay most of the taxes or no taxes. Public assistance is generally offered to those who pay nothing.
I'll stop you right there, and ask what becomes of those people who receive public assistance for a short time period. Do they just die? Or do they become gainfully employed? I know a LOT of single mothers who collected public assistance while working a full-time job AND going back to school. Most are earning $25-35/hour now, supporting themselves, paying taxes. I figured out that it would take about 2-3 years for one of them to pay back in taxes everything she collected in one year. Her affect on tax revenue will be a net positive. Lower, perhaps, than someone who didn't collect benefits, but higher than someone who didn't pay taxes at all.
Quote:
Once the ones who pay nothing get to be more than the 50% then there is no reason for them to not vote for the politicians who will give them more (ie. take more from the others.) After that, it will be down hill quickly. Oh, and we are getting very close, and it will be very bad (getting worse).
Citation needed. Who is receiving what? I can show a number of public benefits that more than 50% of the population receive, but you (correctly) pointed out that most of these shouldn't be considered "public assistance".
Do you think my nurse friends are going to be voting for someone who throws around cash willy nilly? You're theory requires greater than 50% of the population be CAREER public assistance beneficiaries, not the intended, short-term beneficiaries. The people who receive benefits for a year or two aren't going to be voting to hand over their paychecks to those who sit on the dole for decades.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Another thing here that hasn't been talked about through all the immigration talk. Jail is not a stone issue with me that you seem to think. A perfect example. A man I know personally, brought to this country ILLEGALLY as a child. Grew up, served two tours of duty with the US Army in Vietnam but flunked his citizenship test and was denied.
He did not willingly and knowingly break laws, he was raising his family and could afford the one expensive shot to test.
You make it a pain to quote you, but it's OK - you've made your position abundantly clear. People who break laws deserve nothing but jail. Gotcha. My rebuttal to that philosophy can be condensed down to a name:
Rosa Parks
Ms. Parks broke a law. She had the audacity to be black and sit in the front of a bus. The law was changed.
Rosa Parks did NOT break a law, that was bus policy, not a law. They did arrest her but it was not for breaking that law, she would not get off the bus.
This is a seperate issue, Rosa Parks was a CITIZEN of the US, not an immigrant. That was an issue of one group of citizens denying rights to others. This is IMMIGRATION. TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES.
I thought they were separate issues at first. Then you based your entire argument on the fact that they were criminals. You ignored that the law in question creates incentives to cause the very problems that law was designed to reduce. We've moved on from that point. The issue at hand now is no longer whether they are criminals, but whether that law should even exist. You're so hell bent on enforcing that law; can you even justify its existence in the first place? Or are you simply demanding that we enforce it because it is on the books, regardless of the harm it causes to American citizens, American businesses, the economy, and tax revenue?
A criminal is not a criminal if the law he breaks should not be on the books. Justify the law, then come talk to me.
Quote:
When immigrants become citizens of the US they too deserve equality, no question about it. so much for your touching civil rights try.
And this goes right back to the Nazi calling, anyone who is against illegal immigration is NOT against it because they are prejudice against Latinos. As I stated time and again, we need to EASE the efforts and expense needed to make LEGAL immigration possible and discourage ILLEGAL activities rather it be migration or littering or stealing. Not reward criminals.
Did I ever suggest it was racism? No. Nationalism, yes, but not racism. I never got the impression that you had a problem with Latino citizens, for example. Regardless, the distinction between "citizen" and "illegal immigrant" has about as much practical effect on someone's ability to contribute or detract from American society as the color of one's skin. I consider the distinction far less significant (as far as work is concerned) than you do, apparently.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, calling for jailing of all illegal immigrants and making it easier for the same people to come here. Why not skip all the bureaucracy? Hand out taxpayer IDs to anyone who asks for one. Why jail someone whose only crime is that their parents brought them here before they were able to walk? Why jail someone who has lived here for 20 years without so much as a traffic citation?
Is it "rewarding a criminal" to let that person pay taxes legally?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Another thing here that hasn't been talked about through all the immigration talk. Jail is not a stone issue with me that you seem to think. A perfect example. A man I know personally, brought to this country ILLEGALLY as a child. Grew up, served two tours of duty with the US Army in Vietnam but flunked his citizenship test and was denied.
He did not willingly and knowingly break laws, he was raising his family and could afford the one expensive shot to test.
What I think about your opinions is based only on what you've presented. If you don't like what I'm saying about you, you might consider how you come across to other people; how I might have gotten that impression from your words.
For my part, I'll look over the thread again from time to time and try to see if I've made faulty assumptions of my own.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
What I think about your opinions is based only on what you've presented. If you don't like what I'm saying about you, you might consider how you come across to other people; how I might have gotten that impression from your words.
For my part, I'll look over the thread again from time to time and try to see if I've made faulty assumptions of my own.
My opinions are this, laws need to change, (and here we go on another tangent), pot, cocaine should be legal. That would reduce the power of these drug cartels and bring in revenue tax. There are many good people from neighboring countries trying to get here, coyotes, cartels leave them in the desert to die, force them to pay ridiculas amounts to get here, and hold their families hostage if they can't pay.
We need to make immigration easier so people are NOT illegals. That doesn't include amnesty for those who broke the laws. Forging documentation, licenses, SS cards, etc.etc., is what many of these people have been up to. As I said, you in Ohio have no idea, this is not a cut dry issue of handing out cards to everyone. Identity theft is ramped and that is a seperate crime in and of itself, they need to go to jail for these crimes. These illegals are criminal and are not the same types of people in many cases that you standardly are thinking of. For instance, when years ago, an immigrant came here, they instantly made preperations to naturalize to citizenship. Now they BUY papers and docs and cheat the system, that's criminal. You want to hand out free reign to these kinds of people without screening? I would like to ask you this question, Do you personally know any illegal immigrants? I do. And I will tell you what they are likely to do wth that card you're proposing to hand out. They would report for unemployment benefits with it, work off of another set of ID with another card , then sign up for welfare with yet another ID. Do you understand that? If you are willing to break federal immigration laws to get here, chances are you would also engage in other criminal activities, not ALWAYS, but chances are yes. It's time people start taking responcibility for their criminal acts and stop making excuses for it, that's all, criminals need to go to jail or otherwise take responcibility for their crimes. I had to when I broke the law, what makes them so special that they don't need to?
Well it's been nice discussing this with you, I must admit you have some good ideas, even though you are condenscending and from Ohio.
Linear Mode
