Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 06:54am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Look.. when we founded on migrants.. it was a different time. Completely different time in the history of other countries, this country, the number of people we needed, as a nation, to get things done. The political systems of most of the other countries that sent immigrants have completely changed. The opportunities available, the morality of people and the willingness to make a difference, all that has changed since then. Just because it was our past doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be the same way forward without changing to meet the needs of the times.

A different time? You don't have to hearken back to the 1700s, bro. Think 1950s after WW2. Think 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. And even then "things change" is not a legitimate reason to change policy. Other countries are "better now", so we should therefore close our borders a little bit more? Morality has changed therefore we should close our borders a little bit more? Immigration is only about "meeting needs"? Read the mantra on the base of the Statue of Liberty. It doesn't say "give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses because we have factories that need workers".

How many people came over illegally after WW2 or even after the fall of the wall. They came over legally, applied for immunity or persecution or whatever. I'm not asking for hte laws to be changed, only enforced.

As for the Mantra.. we change the laws we live by with amendments when needed..

Druggies come here for rehab? Then I'm sure the process works for them.. guaranteed stay in the facility, paid for, temp visa, get better then head back home. I have no idea, but because they have a drug habit doesn't mean I think they should just come in and make themselves at home. This isn't a conversation about political exiles, they have a difference process. What about Americans "who don't have a job because they have no education or future in their own country". What about the rights of our own people who need help, who might want to work other places, might want to get a job but are over educated or not the same skills.

What rights of Americans are violated by immigrants? And a better question: what rights do Americans have that we ought to deny immigrants? You're saying we should keep foreigners out because some Americans are deadbeats?

You said people that don't live here have a 'right' to work here or find work here. I saw why? And if they do, why don't we have the same rights to find a job other places. When I saw American rights, I'm talking about the fact that the companies that employee the illegals at lower wages are doing so when we have people without jobs that would do the work, but at a legal/higher/normal wage.

They are little nickels and dimes. Go look up statistic on how much free medical care illegal immigrants receive. Pro-tip: treating the occasional broken arm or flu shot isn't exactly a free $100,000 kidney replacement followed by a lifetime of $10,000 per year anti-rejection meds, and who gets the latter? Rhymes with fumerican fitizens on fedicare...

Are you talking nation wide or in the state of AZ. I'm betting AZ sees much more illegal cost to their system then NV or OR. I'm arguing that it makes sense for AZ. Not Main or FL, though I'm sure they have issues, but not as much.

Furthermore, when you consider the amount of tax under-the-table workers do pay (again, primarily in consumption) that nickel and dime becomes more like penny and nickel. I'd argue they contribute quite a bit more than to the American citizen who collects welfare and medicare because of actual laziness.

And I would argue that the amount of my tax dollars that has to pay for medicare goes farther when it's just the Americans then when it's the Americans and illegal immigrants. Our ability for our taxes to meet the needs of our citizens (free loaders, medicare or otherwise) goes down when you add the cost of illegal immigrants. in an already over worked system, this increases the burden. And to be fare, some of those freeloaders that are now on medicare, paid their dues when they had been working for the last two years. I'm not talking about this percentage over that percentage.. but total effects.

Go check your numbers. Immigrant children do learn English far more quickly than their parents. And re-read the interesting nugget you said right after that: increasing the (evil!) profits of an American company and working isn't contributing. That's tea party quality double-think right there.

If that's the case then why do teachers in AZ complain about what I just said? Why to parents complain about the same problem? Immigrants and English aren't new, yet states feel the need to have things in Spanish because they have been sued for not offering it?

People complain all the time about shit that they heard or have embellished. "I'm still waiting to see Obama's birth certificate!!!!" That is not a statistic. Look up actual numbers on how many kids actually don't speak English in actual classrooms. Yes there are some, but not many. (and this is stupid anyway since learning a language should have nothing to do with immigration or working status; how's your Dutch again?)

My Dutch is enough to get my by when I need something. I don't ask for forms in other languages and in fact I have to translate bills letters and other things as needed. I also live in a country where 80% speak English. If i went to Germany, my German would be better. I'm not in school and I'm not looking to be a permanent resident. Again, different arguments.

If was doing to raise kids here, as a permanent resident, I could PAY OUT OF POCKET for an American/International school or have my kid learn Dutch and go to a Dutch school. I'm not expecting special treatment.

I don't know about the double-think.. but What I was trying to say that instead of paying normal wages and normal taxes, then reduce the wage, don't pay the tax and increase the profit for the business. Is that double-speak?

Not double-speak, double think. I don't think you're lying or being duplicitous, I thnk you're applying things the wrong way, generally based on feelings instead of data. You said that illegal workers don't contribute, and then you described exactly how they do: American companies and American employers make more money, migrant workers earn a wage which they spend in American stores including American sales tax, and the workers wouldn't have paid income tax anyway since they make such a low wage. Compare that to an American on welfare. How is that "not contributing"?

that's working contributing to a companies profits, not to the federal and state taxes of the place they live and the services they get. the employer is also not paying those same taxes for the work and yes, shows more profit, so good for the shareholder (yippy) but bad for the municipality that has to support the immigrants family. Welfare isn't just given, you do have to work before you get it..

What isn't right? Stop and ID at any time.. I would agree with that, it's not right. But, if you are involved in an incident and the police have to show up, asking for an ID is normal and probably to be expected. Besides, beating students with batons is a whole different thing that asking to see a valid ID or proof of entry. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

It's not the same thing, true, but it comes from the same law enforcement system. I'm also not talking about asking for ID when you're obviously involved with an incident. I'm talking about requiring ID at any time someone asks which was how the AZ law was originally written (note again: they "clarified" this because of the clear and present dangers to freedom presented by such a law). Read some of the examples of what this law would have allowed: a van full of Mexicans which could be reasonably suspicious in AZ but not otherwise doing anything illegal: stop and ask each and every person for ID. That's not exactly involved in an incident.

That part, your last example, that was removed because of the vague problems with it. So now, they won't be stopped unless they brake the law, and then, when they do, they all get asked and all get bounced out, instead of just being let go. So the state made corrections, and that's a good thing, right?

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 08:32am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

How many people came over illegally after WW2 or even after the fall of the wall. They came over legally, applied for immunity or persecution or whatever. I'm not asking for hte laws to be changed, only enforced.

The laws are, in general, unconscionable. I'm asking for them to be changed.

As for the Mantra.. we change the laws we live by with amendments when needed..

The saying on the Statue of Liberty isn't a law to be changed, it's a saying by which we are idealized. People come to America because of many reasons, we prevent them because we're fucking jerks and then we hide behind "well, that's our laws!" while neglecting the very fact of our democratic system to change laws.

You said people that don't live here have a 'right' to work here or find work here. I saw why? And if they do, why don't we have the same rights to find a job other places. When I saw American rights, I'm talking about the fact that the companies that employee the illegals at lower wages are doing so when we have people without jobs that would do the work, but at a legal/higher/normal wage.

I can agree with all that. But I don't agree that just because Americans have the right to demand a higher wage (say, for picking tomatoes) that American businesses have the obligation to hire them at that rate. Labor has the right to demand whatever it wants, and management has the right to offer whatever it wants. Your argument applies just as well to other occupations such as retail. Walmart employees can demand higher wages if they want, and Walmart can tell them to fuck off they're paying minimum wage. The right to do something does not always imply an obligation for someone else. I have the right to free speech and you have the right to walk away and not listen to my blather, &c.

Are you talking nation wide or in the state of AZ. I'm betting AZ sees much more illegal cost to their system then NV or OR. I'm arguing that it makes sense for AZ. Not Main or FL, though I'm sure they have issues, but not as much.

It seems to me you should investigate these things before forming opinions about them. Here is a brief study from the University of Arizona (lol) on what little anyone knows. The complete summary from the final page (note: it uses "unauthorized immigrants" for those whom we call "illegal":

"It is difficult to make the case that unauthorized immigrants, as a group, drive uncompensated care costs. Certainly the impacts are not uniform. The hospitals in communities with large numbers of uninsured, unauthorized immigrants as patients bear a disproportionate burden as a result of illegal immigration.

While rates of uninsurance are higher among immigrants as a group (authorized and unauthorized) than in the native-born population, the number of native-born uninsured is larger than the number of uninsured immigrants. Further, because immigrant usage of heath care services is significantly lower than that of native-born people, it becomes even harder to make the case that immigrants drive these costs. Certainly, uncompensated care costs are a serious problem for the health care system in the United States, particularly in areas with large numbers of uninsured patients. But, while illegal immigration is a problem with many other dimensions, its links to uncompensated health care costs are far from straightforward."

And I would argue that the amount of my tax dollars that has to pay for medicare goes farther when it's just the Americans then when it's the Americans and illegal immigrants. Our ability for our taxes to meet the needs of our citizens (free loaders, medicare or otherwise) goes down when you add the cost of illegal immigrants. in an already over worked system, this increases the burden. And to be fare, some of those freeloaders that are now on medicare, paid their dues when they had been working for the last two years. I'm not talking about this percentage over that percentage.. but total effects.

Well of course. Jeez, if everything everywhere was on the up-and-up, then one illegal alien in one place got one $10 treatment, then yeah you would be correct. That's a cost that wasn't paid for in taxes. The issue is whether it is significant or not, and whether the total economic benefits of having "illegal" aliens in the US outweigh the total costs, and if we would save even more taxpayer money by removing most of the barriers to immigration and border police and all that other stuff. As companies begin to boycott Arizona, they will have to wrestle with this question.

My Dutch is enough to get my by when I need something. I don't ask for forms in other languages and in fact I have to translate bills letters and other things as needed. I also live in a country where 80% speak English. If i went to Germany, my German would be better. I'm not in school and I'm not looking to be a permanent resident. Again, different arguments.

It's not a different argument to me, as I'm not talking only about permanent residents. I said anyone (yes with the standard caveats) should be able to come and go and work freely if they want. I don't require any kind of residency status or anything else in my thoughts. If someone is here as a tourist and says "fuck it I want to stay", I say let them.

Any bets on what percentage of people in AZ speak Spanish? ;) Over 28% as of six years ago (fuckwiki). Yes, about 70% of people in the Netherlands speak English, but note that it is a required class in their schools.

If was doing to raise kids here, as a permanent resident, I could PAY OUT OF POCKET for an American/International school or have my kid learn Dutch and go to a Dutch school. I'm not expecting special treatment.

You won't need special treatment since 1) your kids will grow up bilingual just as Hispanic immigrants' kids do, and 2) Dutch school start teaching English as a required course anywhere from first to fourth grade. We're busy excising Spanish speakers from schools rather than requiring it as a course for those who don't speak it. The systems are completely unlike.

that's working contributing to a companies profits, not to the federal and state taxes of the place they live and the services they get. the employer is also not paying those same taxes for the work and yes, shows more profit, so good for the shareholder (yippy) but bad for the municipality that has to support the immigrants family. Welfare isn't just given, you do have to work before you get it..

Corporate "profits" are taxed. Things that the immigrants buy are taxed. Immigrant wages are so low that if they were above the table they would probably pay almost no income tax. I can't keep repeating these things to you without banging my head on the wall. You totally don't understand the basics of the economic system that you decry on one hand and support on the other. Seriously bro, it would be like me trying to educate you on network infrastructure. I don't even understand the definitions of the terms and would mix things up every which-a-way.

For example: if you have to work to get welfare, then how are illegals' families burdens on the system? They don't get welfare unless they work, right? Not that most illegals bring their families with them, but let's assume that false notion just for the sake of the question.

That part, your last example, that was removed because of the vague problems with it. So now, they won't be stopped unless they brake the law, and then, when they do, they all get asked and all get bounced out, instead of just being let go. So the state made corrections, and that's a good thing, right?

Yes, it is a good thing. Twenty-seven steps backward, one step forward. There were many people defending it pretty staunchly before the more obvious problems with it were addressed, but fixing the most flagrant problems doesn't make the whole "good". You have a shit sandwich, sure you took the stray butt hairs and peanuts out of the shit, but you've still got a shit sandwich.

Posted by Krux on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 08:56pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Any bets on what percentage of people in AZ speak Spanish? ;) Over 28% as of six years ago (fuckwiki). Yes, about 70% of people in the Netherlands speak English, but note that it is a required class in their schools.

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia. I don't get your irrational hatred of it.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 11:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia. I don't get your irrational hatred of it.

It's the culture of fiefdoms I dislike, not the site per se.

Posted by MadArab on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 06:58am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia. I don't get your irrational hatred of it.

It's the culture of fiefdoms I dislike, not the site per se.

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.