Perhaps you are all sick to death of the illegal immigration headlines, but brace yourselves for another round. Better yet...perhaps a few phone calls to your reps are in order. Definitely a government run amuck. Obviously we are no longer the United States of America, but rather the United States of Central America and Mexico. Peachy! No one except Rick Perry seems to be doing a damn thing about it.
Official: Second illegal immigrant wave of 30,000 coming in September, October
"A second wave of some 30,000 unaccompanied illegal minors from violence-ravaged Central American nations is expected to swamp the U.S.-Mexico border in September and October, a crisis that could be worse than the one that has already pushed 62,000 children into the U.S., according to a top immigration group.
"Right now it's just too hard for them to cross, but we expect when it cools down a little bit in August or in September, October, we'll see another surge again," said Tiffany Nelms with the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a key support group handling the current crisis. A second wave will pressure border agents and support groups far more than the previous surge when 62,000 arrived over six months....
...But, she added, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has been working overtime to find housing for the anticipated second wave.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029)
Quote from: suzziY on August 18, 2014, 06:02:11 PM
Perhaps you are all sick to death of the illegal immigration headlines, but brace yourselves for another round. Better yet...perhaps a few phone calls to your reps are in order. Definitely a government run amuck. Obviously we are no longer the United States of America, but rather the United States of Central America and Mexico. Peachy! No one except Rick Perry seems to be doing a damn thing about it.
Official: Second illegal immigrant wave of 30,000 coming in September, October
"A second wave of some 30,000 unaccompanied illegal minors from violence-ravaged Central American nations is expected to swamp the U.S.-Mexico border in September and October, a crisis that could be worse than the one that has already pushed 62,000 children into the U.S., according to a top immigration group.
"Right now it's just too hard for them to cross, but we expect when it cools down a little bit in August or in September, October, we'll see another surge again," said Tiffany Nelms with the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a key support group handling the current crisis. A second wave will pressure border agents and support groups far more than the previous surge when 62,000 arrived over six months....
...But, she added, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has been working overtime to find housing for the anticipated second wave.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029)
The ass holes went on vacation. How convenient....
I wonder what the militia have brewing for the event.
Perfect timing, oen of the guys trying to stop this Gov. Perry is under indictment by some kangaroo court ruling..... :popcorn:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 18, 2014, 06:26:10 PM
Perfect timing, oen of the guys trying to stop this Gov. Perry is under indictment by some kangaroo court ruling..... :popcorn:
Something tells me, this whole thing is going to backfire on the Marxists, may even put Perry in the WH, if they aren't careful.
I don't think it would put him in the WH but it could definitely backfire on the Marxists, Americans always have sympathy for the underdog
Quote from: Solar on August 18, 2014, 06:32:31 PM
Something tells me, this whole thing is going to backfire on the Marxists, may even put Perry in the WH, if they aren't careful.
I sure hope you are correct; he's the only one that has had enough guts to push back. Soo....I'm wondering ...does the next governor of Texas have the power to pardon Perry if found guilty ... or perhaps the Texas attorney general?
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 18, 2014, 06:38:38 PM
I don't think it would put him in the WH but it could definitely backfire on the Marxists, Americans always have sympathy for the underdog
I say that, only because of the hatred in the country for the leftists, and going after a guy trying to do whats in the best interests for all, will make him a martyr in the fight.
The more they go after him, the more people will rally around him, possibly to the point of making him bullet proof.
I'm not even a Perry supporter, but I do support what he's doing, and if the attacks keep up, I just may join the cause to propel him into the highest office in the land.
People love an underdog as Suzzi pointed out, and if people start rallying around him, the momentum could easily build to a fever pitch.
He's already liked by both the libs and the cons because we all hate what the Marxist is doing with illegals.
I have no doubt the Dims have considered this, and most likely, this will go no where. They did what they set out to do, create doubt amongst the LIV, and they'll quickly move on to the next target.
Quote from: suzziY on August 18, 2014, 06:02:11 PM
Perhaps you are all sick to death of the illegal immigration headlines, but brace yourselves for another round. Better yet...perhaps a few phone calls to your reps are in order. Definitely a government run amuck. Obviously we are no longer the United States of America, but rather the United States of Central America and Mexico. Peachy! No one except Rick Perry seems to be doing a damn thing about it.
Official: Second illegal immigrant wave of 30,000 coming in September, October
"A second wave of some 30,000 unaccompanied illegal minors from violence-ravaged Central American nations is expected to swamp the U.S.-Mexico border in September and October, a crisis that could be worse than the one that has already pushed 62,000 children into the U.S., according to a top immigration group.
"Right now it's just too hard for them to cross, but we expect when it cools down a little bit in August or in September, October, we'll see another surge again," said Tiffany Nelms with the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a key support group handling the current crisis. A second wave will pressure border agents and support groups far more than the previous surge when 62,000 arrived over six months....
...But, she added, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has been working overtime to find housing for the anticipated second wave.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029)
The word "wave" there in the title suggests that there are "lulls" or periods of time where it "lessens".
That's sort of misleading I think, as the "wave" of illegal immigration into our nation actually is and has been up to this point, an unending flood.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 18, 2014, 06:26:10 PM
Perfect timing, oen of the guys trying to stop this Gov. Perry is under indictment by some kangaroo court ruling..... :popcorn:
Yet he invited it by backing Tax-payer subsidies for illegals to go to college in the state.
Gotta' be thinking about their future, right? BP
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 04:44:24 AM
Yet he invited it by backing Tax-payer subsidies for illegals to go to college in the state.
Gotta' be thinking about their future, right? BP
I understand what you are saying and I hear you. It doesn't help the fact that in 1984 he was elected to the House of Representatives as a Democrat and then in 1989 switched to the Republican Party. However, it still remains that he is doing and has done more to thwart off illegal immigration than most, including our present and past president. Perry has been dealing with illegal immigration front and center since he was elected governor in 2000. He has a better of understanding first hand at what is going on at the border than most.
Also consider despite the negative impact that illegal immigration has on it's economy, Texas is thriving when most of this country is still struggling economically and now states are having to deal with pockets of illegals (soon to be renamed homeless). He's doing something right...the Dems don't want the rest of the country prospering because of a Republican or a Republican in office reigning in illegal immigration once and for all.
Perry may not be TEA, but he sure as hell has some good conservative Constitutional values and has been willing to roll up his sleeves and dig his cowboy boots in the ground to get something done.
Imagine a country with Rick Perry as president along with a Republican House and Senate vs. a president such as Jeb Bush, Romney or Christie...right now he's the Dems worst nightmare. Besides, if Perry is selected as the GOP nominee, I would anticipate that he would select his fellow Texan Ted Cruz as his right hand man!
I think a Perry/Cruz ticket would be unbeatable. Just my opinion of course.
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 05:15:52 AM
Also consider despite the negative impact that illegal immigration has on it's economy,
I have to correct you here, the State's own Comptroller found Illegals added 2.1% to their economy in 2006, or $17.2 Billion.
Immigration is immigration, labor is labor, the economy doesn't care what your political status is.
Now there are sociological effects to be concerned about, so I'm not saying this should be taken as an open pass to let this problem grow.
I'm also
really not a fan of those Subsidies, a similiar policy in Colorado made my own tuition go up while I was still a student.
QuotePerry may not be TEA, but he sure as hell has some good conservative
I disagree, he shows support for some, but has demonstrated bad instincts for others.
The HPV injections (heck, Palin was nailing him to the wall for just that one), his support of New Deal era-programs like rural electrification and the Bureau of Irrigation, eminent domain use to put up Toll Roads, his "questionable" use of grants to businesses (http://www.texasobserver.org/slush-fun/) in the State, the State business tax he introduced (oh boy)....
I like his stance on the Fed (End it), and
may be willing to vote for him on just that reason, so long as that's made a campaign promise, but I hold no delusions on his... weaknesses.
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 05:15:52 AM
I understand what you are saying and I hear you. It doesn't help the fact that in 1984 he was elected to the House of Representatives as a Democrat and then in 1989 switched to the Republican Party. However, it still remains that he is doing and has done more to thwart off illegal immigration than most, including our present and past president. Perry has been dealing with illegal immigration front and center since he was elected governor in 2000. He has a better of understanding first hand at what is going on at the border than most.
Also consider despite the negative impact that illegal immigration has on it's economy, Texas is thriving when most of this country is still struggling economically and now states are having to deal with pockets of illegals (soon to be renamed homeless). He's doing something right...the Dems don't want the rest of the country prospering because of a Republican or a Republican in office reigning in illegal immigration once and for all.
Perry may not be TEA, but he sure as hell has some good conservative Constitutional values and has been willing to roll up his sleeves and dig his cowboy boots in the ground to get something done.
Imagine a country with Rick Perry as president along with a Republican House and Senate vs. a president such as Jeb Bush, Romney or Christie...right now he's the Dems worst nightmare. Besides, if Perry is selected as the GOP nominee, I would anticipate that he would select his fellow Texan Ted Cruz as his right hand man!
I think a Perry/Cruz ticket would be unbeatable. Just my opinion of course.
It would def be better than what we have now, and the alternative. A liberal elected to the WH again.
But then of course a Mickey Mouse/Goofy ticket would be better than the alternative too so....
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:32:26 AM
I have to correct you here, the State's own Comptroller found Illegals added 2.1% to their economy in 2006, or $17.2 Billion.
Sorry Slim, but that's pure unadulterated bull shit! How does bringing absolutely nothing of value into the country, generate new, never seen before revenue?
Think about that for a moment. Now feel free to post the link to back it up.
Oh, and welcome to the forum.
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 05:37:38 AM
Sorry Slim, but that's pure unadulterated bull shit! How does bringing absolutely nothing of value into the country, generate new, never seen before revenue?
The same way all immigrants have been doing it for centuries "
with nothing but the shirts on their backs".
Either they start new businesses, or they fill pre-existing labor needs.
Here's the Comptroller's report (http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/6economic.html).
Their stated objective was to find that the illegals were a net drag on the State's economy, but they didn't.
I'm economically minded before I'm political, and even though I don't like what's going on, especially with the kids wondering over here in this most recent bout, I can't ignore what Supply & Demand tells me.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 06:00:05 AM
The same way all immigrants have been doing it for centuries "with nothing but the shirts on their backs".
Either they start new businesses, or they fill pre-existing labor needs.
Here's the Comptroller's report (http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/6economic.html).
Their stated objective was to find that the illegals were a net drag on the State's economy, but they didn't.
I'm economically minded before I'm political, and even though I don't like what's going on, especially with the kids wondering over here in this most recent bout, I can't ignore what Supply & Demand tells me.
As I suspected, it's all based on "assumption", they had to guesstimate the initial figures, then going off the bogus numbers, created a false conclusion.
All that aside, these illegals merely displaced people at a lower wage wanting to work, so to subscribe benefit where none exists, is pure bull shit.
Not to mention it's a 14 year old report. One has to wonder how, using these same methods, in other states actually affected by the depression.
That report came assigned an agenda, one that pols could hold up and claim illegals are not a problem.
You can't see that?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:32:26 AM
I have to correct you here, the State's own Comptroller found Illegals added 2.1% to their economy in 2006, or $17.2 Billion.
Immigration is immigration, labor is labor, the economy doesn't care what your political status is.
Now there are sociological effects to be concerned about, so I'm not saying this should be taken as an open pass to let this problem grow.
I'm also really not a fan of those Subsidies, a similiar policy in Colorado made my own tuition go up while I was still a student.
I disagree, he shows support for some, but has demonstrated bad instincts for others.
The HPV injections (heck, Palin was nailing him to the wall for just that one), his support of New Deal era-programs like rural electrification and the Bureau of Irrigation, eminent domain use to put up Toll Roads, his "questionable" use of grants to businesses (http://www.texasobserver.org/slush-fun/) in the State, the State business tax he introduced (oh boy)....
I like his stance on the Fed (End it), and may be willing to vote for him on just that reason, so long as that's made a campaign promise, but I hold no delusions on his... weaknesses.
Sorry, but I must correct you and I certainly don't know where you are getting your factoids that illegals add to the economy ... they are a huge drain.
..."In its section on the income of illegals, CIS reported that public education — at $39 billion to educate illegals — highlights the "fiscal problem" they create.
We estimate the combined total income of illegal immigrant households at about $162 billion. If these estimates are correct, it would mean that just to cover the costs of education they would have to pay 24 percent of their income. Even if illegal immigrants paid all the income and payroll taxes that they should, given their lower income and large household size it seems doubtful that they would pay enough in taxes to cover the education of their children, let alone all the other costs they create.
But again, this is because of the education level of illegals, not because they do not work. The vast majority of working-age illegals work. ... But because of their education levels, a very large share of illegal immigrants have low incomes. This is the primary reason that their presence in the United States tends to strain public coffers...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/12431-illegal-aliens-a-drain-on-us-taxpayers-report-says (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/12431-illegal-aliens-a-drain-on-us-taxpayers-report-says)
That is just one current stat for a very limited scenario depicting illegals that are actually working. The negative impact of illegal immigration on various states and our economy in general is something that I have researched for several years. I am by no means an authority, nor do I claim to be a professional economist, but if you have been brainwashed into thinking that illegal immigrants have a positive impact on our economy you are very sadly mistaken. What you need to take into consideration is that when illegal immigrants enter this country ILLEGALLY, they have NOT paid anything, into the "system" from which they are taking. The "system" includes; the legal system, jails, prisons, law enforcement, hospitals, medical facilities, schools, food stamps, housing, etc., etc.
Besides the statistics, very rudimentary mathematics and logic comes into play here. A very simple example; if you have a $100.00 in the bank and you allow 10 people to borrow $10.00 each and none of those people put any money back and you put another $100.00 back into the bank and another 10 people borrow $10.00 without putting any money back what do you think eventually happens? Before long, do you think it just may be possible that you just might run out of money to keep supporting those who are borrowing?
Perhaps you are one that thinks that with redistribution of wealth we will be able to support all those illegals.
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 06:22:38 AM
As I suspected, it's all based on "assumption", they had to guesstimate the initial figures, then going off the bogus numbers, created a false conclusion.
All that aside, these illegals merely displaced people at a lower wage wanting to work, so to subscribe benefit where none exists, is pure bull shit.
The American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/how-does-immigration-affect-us-wages-and-jobs/) only found very small effect on wages.
Britain, who has had for years a more "neo-liberal" immigration policy than us, saw unemployment shrink as their immigration rate grew. (http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc160/AlaskaSlim/Economics/migration-unemployment1-500x342_zps4c725ce8.png)
In truth, either it's positive, or there is no connection between Immigration and unemployment.
To explain:
A
job is a zero-sum game, someone takes that job, that job is gone. But when you move to the plural,
jobs, you now have to take into account what conditions help to generate jobs.
Having more people, more ideas, more
consumers as well as
laborers, tends to makes that generating easier.
QuoteNot to mention it's a 14 year old report. One has to wonder how, using these same methods, in other states actually affected by the depression.
Texas is the only State to see Illegal immigration grow since 2008 (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/texas_is_only_state_where_ille.php). It's not hard to figure why.
QuoteThat report came assigned an agenda,
It was written by a Republican, who was Perry's replacement as the Texas Agriculture Commissioner. And the stated agenda was to find the
opposite of what it concluded.
Yeah, I get this is a hard pill to swallow, really I do. I have family in Arizona, they've seen the Cartel smugglers come past where they're at, and they live in Wickenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickenburg,_Arizona), which
ain't exactly a border town.
But at the same time, I'm obligated to say this: economics does not constrain itself to political desires, it has its own laws, and those
must be applied to know what it says.
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 06:32:50 AM
Sorry, but I must correct you and I certainly don't know where you are getting your factoids that illegals add to the economy ... they are a huge drain.
I'll stop you right here. What you go on to quote are
not Economic considerations, rather they're
fiscal considerations, and it's important to make that distinction.
If it's fiscal, then it squares back to Government management, not economic productivity or lack there of, of the people we're speaking to.
Now, Texas estimated in 2005, just the year before of the Texas Comptroller report, that they were spending $4.5 Billion on illegal Immigrants, $3.5 Billion after outlays.
Tagged with the $17.2 Billion, this means that there's a net benefit, even if we were to contrast the two figures like this.
Overall, the picture looks like this: Some states which are benefit-heavy, like New York and California, are giving more than they're getting back, while the Federal Government programs are drawing a net-benefit.
To be honest, on the State-side of things I'm alright with this: New York and California are suffering from their own decisions. They wanted the immigrants there, dished out packages to attract them, so they can pay out the nose for however long they want. Their choice, their failure.
The Federal Government concerns me more, but the American Enterprise Institute, and CATO both say that immigrants in general, and illegals
specifically take less than they put back in, and they this is because of the Social Security "Suspense" account, payments that cannot be matched to SS numbers, and the ITINs, or the IRS' Individual Tax Identification Numbers (http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Individual-Taxpayer-Identification-Number-%28ITIN%29) that many illegals use instead of a SS number in many transactions (and to use it, you have to pay). CATO even says that they take less than the poor native-born (http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor), though others they say they're roughly equal.
Regardless, the welfare system certainly needs reform, even without considering immigrants.
Awww geeeeez (Archie Bunker voice).....another troll, dragging cherry-picked assumption / estimate / modeling-heavy "proof" that disproves every tenet of common sense and basic math ? Yeah, we need another one of those.
Please find us more of these. Can't have enough of them.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 07:26:36 AM
I'll stop you right here. What you go on to quote are not Economic considerations, rather they're fiscal considerations, and it's important to make that distinction.
If it's fiscal, then it squares back to Government management, not economic productivity or lack there of, of the people we're speaking to.
Now, Texas estimated in 2005, just the year before of the Texas Comptroller report, that they were spending $4.5 Billion on illegal Immigrants, $3.5 Billion after outlays.
Tagged with the $17.2 Billion, this means that there's a net benefit, even if we were to contrast the two figures like this.
Overall, the picture looks like this: Some states which are benefit-heavy, like New York and California, are giving more than they're getting back, while the Federal Government programs are drawing a net-benefit.
To be honest, on the State-side of things I'm alright with this: New York and California are suffering from their own decisions. They wanted the immigrants there, dished out packages to attract them, so they can pay out the nose for however long they want. Their choice, their failure.
The Federal Government concerns me more, but the American Enterprise Institute, and CATO both say that immigrants in general, and illegals specifically take less than they put back in, and they this is because of the Social Security "Suspense" account, payments that cannot be matched to SS numbers, and the ITINs, or the IRS' Individual Tax Identification Numbers (http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Individual-Taxpayer-Identification-Number-%28ITIN%29) that many illegals use instead of a SS number in many transactions (and to use it, you have to pay). CATO even says that they take less than the poor native-born (http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor), though others they say they're roughly equal.
Regardless, the welfare system certainly needs reform, even without considering immigrants.
One thing that perhaps you don't realize and really needs to be considered here is the "re-organization" or "re-naming" of illegal immigrants as defined by the Federal Government and CATO and other entities in certain studies and reports. Right now there is a push to "re-name" illegal children as homeless, so indeed when the reports or government stats comes out the "illegal" population numbers changes only slightly. In some past studies, Hispanic illegals for instance have been re-categorized as non-Whites (yet they list blacks) which obviously is a much broader category and skews the accuracy of reports. Again, simple logic and math don't lie. You can't take more out of the system then you put in without it becoming depleted. I am not saying that illegal immigration is the sole problem of our economic downward spiral but a huge part. Last numbers I had when I was really into research showed in 2008, the estimated illegal immigration population was at 20,000,000! However, the Washington Times reported in 2013 that same number. So, as you can see there is a drastic variation in numbers and I doubt that in 5 years that virtually no illegals have come across our borders. A report by the PEW Hispanic Center reports that are an estimated half a million illegal entries into the U.S. per YEAR.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/nearly-20m-illegal-immigrants-us-ex-border-patrol/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/nearly-20m-illegal-immigrants-us-ex-border-patrol/)
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/01/29/a-nation-of-immigrants/ (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/01/29/a-nation-of-immigrants/)
Social Security benefits to illegals, stolen identities, fake social security numbers, voter fraud, fake driver's licenses, bank fraud, loan fraud, crimes committed against legal citizens by illegals etc., etc., all have a negative impact on our economy that most reports tend to fail to recognize or include. Those issues in themselves are a whole other discussion.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 19, 2014, 07:58:03 AM
Awww geeeeez (Archie Bunker voice).....another troll,
Not so, I will gladly go through each point if you wish it. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, nor did I start at.
What I learned of economics gradually showed it to me. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and you'd only realize it if you're familiar with more than a few core concepts to economics. Not something I picked up right away, no sir.
Quotedragging cherry-picked assumption / estimate / modeling-heavy "proof" that disproves every tenet of common sense and basic math ?
I apply both.
Immigration is a net benefit to economy, that is common sense. There is no economist on this planet that isn't of heterodox persuasion that would try to deny it.
The question is if Illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration in general to say it does not offer this benefit.
The conclusion that it does unfortunately has several obstacles, ones that I don't see it overcoming.
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 08:14:16 AMAgain, simple logic and math don't lie. You can't take more out of the system then you put in without it becoming depleted.
Yes that's true, but you're still fixated on the
Fiscal side.
Economics, is not fixed, because
wealth is not fixed. You can always make more of it. And since wealth creation and job creation are correlated, you can always make more jobs.
QuoteI am not saying that illegal immigration is the sole problem of our economic downward spiral but a huge part.
You're reading the Government as the economy in that statement. So I must ask: do you truly think that? Do you think our economy rises and falls by the fiscal state of our Government? As I would prescribe the opposite: the Fiscal stability of our Government is dictated (in part) by the economy, which is a connected but separate entity.
QuoteLast numbers I had when I was really into research showed in 2008, the estimated illegal immigration population was at 20,000,000! However, the Washington Times reported in 2013 that same number. So, as you can see there is a drastic variation in numbers and I doubt that in 7 years that virtually no illegals have come across our borders.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that in everywhere
but Texas, which is where all the new guys are going, the illegal population has either fallen or stagnated.
You should read my link (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/texas_is_only_state_where_ille.php), it was PEW they were quoting, we are not in conflict.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 06:00:05 AM
The same way all immigrants have been doing it for centuries "with nothing but the shirts on their backs".
Either they start new businesses, or they fill pre-existing labor needs.
Here's the Comptroller's report (http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/6economic.html).
Their stated objective was to find that the illegals were a net drag on the State's economy, but they didn't.
I'm economically minded before I'm political, and even though I don't like what's going on, especially with the kids wondering over here in this most recent bout, I can't ignore what Supply & Demand tells me.
"Either they start businesses or they fill an existing labor need......" How are the minor children doing either? Tooooooo damned many of 'em, most of which are illegal to start with.
What does the law of supply and demand tell you about "kids" who wandered over here? How are they helping the economy of any state? Do states have funds set aside to take care of illegal minors or even illegal adults? I'm talking the whole nine yards of food, medical, housing, transportation, education? Heck most states are trying to figure out by a yearly budget of how they are going to be able to care for its own citizens and aren't prepared to handle the influx of ILLEGALS, no matter if they are poor little degraded curtain climbers that are here without their moms and dads.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 19, 2014, 08:29:15 AM
"Either they start businesses or they fill an existing labor need......" How are the minor children doing either?
That's a recent thing, and they aren't illegal immigrants: They're asylum seekers.
I don't mean to nitpick, but since our own system commands that we make distinctions, well..:
Immigrant Eligibility for Public Assistance BenefitsImmigrants' eligibility for public benefits is based on specific aspects of their immigration status and state policies.9 Some key elements of the rules are:
1. Citizenship.Naturalized citizens and U.S.-born children in non-citizen families are citizens. They are fully eligible for public benefits like Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI, if they meet other program eligibility criteria.10
2. Refugees and Asylees.Immigrants granted refugee or asylee status are generally eligible for public benefits if they meet program eligibility criteria.
3. Lawful Permanent Residents.Lawful permanent residents (LPRs) must wait at least five years before they are eligible for benefits, but states have the option of providing them earlier.11 After five years, LPRs are eligible for federal benefits if they meet the program eligibility criteria. As exceptions, LPR children have been eligible for SNAP benefits since 2003 and states have been able to restore Medicaid benefits for children and pregnant women since 2009.
4. Temporary/Provisional Immigrants.Temporary immigrants (e.g., work or student visa holders) are generally ineligible for public benefits, including the youth who are categorized as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."
5. Undocumented Immigrants (aka, illegal Aliens).Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for the public assistance programs mentioned above.
For more details on this last part, go here:
Poor non-Native born Americans Use Less Welfare | Sunshine State News (http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/immigrant-myth-buster-poor-immigrants-use-less-welfare)
QuoteWhat does the law of supply and demand tell you about "kids" who wandered over here?
They're mostly coming here to be with their parents. Their parents are here because they're looking for work, and we pay more than most nearby-nations, and have a domestic demand for their labor.
Also... the Latin countries they're largely coming from have a violence rate even worse than that of Iraq during the height of the insurgency. Pretty strong motivator to get out, that.
QuoteHow are they helping the economy of any state? Do states have funds set aside to take care of illegal minors or even illegal adults?
We do that, because we're not letting them go to their parents. We're taking care of them, with the eventual goal of sending them back. And I'll be honest, I don't which is the right decision here. I'm leaning towards the deportation.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:15:43 AM
Not so, I will gladly go through each point if you wish it. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, nor did I start at.
What I learned of economics gradually showed it to me. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and you'd only realize it if you're familiar with more than a few core concepts to economics. Not something I picked up right away, no sir.
I apply both.
Immigration is a net benefit to economy, that is common sense. There is no economist on this planet that isn't of heterodox persuasion that would try to deny it.
The question is if Illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration in general to say it does not offer this benefit.
The conclusion that it does unfortunately has several obstacles, ones that I don't see it overcoming.
Perhaps the progressive liberalism that has been shoved down your throat while attending college has affected your ability to think clearly. Good grief .... illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration? No sh**! What a concept! We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants and the negative effect they have on OUR economy.
Scenario to consider (yes, it does happen):
Juan, a resident of Mexico crosses over into the United States illegally. He is apprehended and processed (all costing tax payers money) and told to show up in court in 14 days. 14 days pass and he doesn't show up a summons is issued (all costing taxpayer money) He later manages to steal a gun and robs a store and resells the items for a few bucks (costing the store owner money). Juan later attacks a homeowner and robs their house (costing the homeowner money, insurance company money and law enforcement money). Juan is caught and thrown in jail where he is serving a sentence of 3 years (all at the expense of the taxpayers).
So .... what part of illegal immigration has a negative impact on our system don't you get?
Perhaps this scenario:
Camila a resident in Mexico now 6 months pregnant crosses over into the U.S. illegally, she is apprehended, processed and told to show up in 14 days (cost to taxpayers). Meanwhile, she has some complications with her pregnancy and goes to the E.R. where she is treated (cost to taxpayers). She never shows up to court, but lo and behold several months later she returns to the E.R. to deliver her baby (cost to taxpayers). Her baby is born on American soil and is now an American citizen ... both receive housing, food stamps, medical, etc.
In both scenarios NEITHER Juan or Camila or her baby of course have paid a penny into the system. So again, what part of, if you take more out of the system than you put in, you will eventually create economic havoc on the system don't you get?
Enough said.
Without the government's restructured provisions, they'd still be illegals getting over.
Don't you get it? We've been in an economic downward state for quite a few years and the idea that you can print money and enact new laws to cover an even less important agenda does not sit well with conservative Americans. Liberal Americans are quite the opposite
Got a question. Does changing the status of illegals to homeless or immigrants take away the criminal aspect of their character? You can paint a leopard but sooner or later the spots will come thru. If these folks are willing to break our laws to gain access to our country, what situation will arise when they will decide to trample our laws again and again? Is this not what they are being taught? That all they have to do is show their ass and everything will come their way?
Sorry but I failed to hit the quote function in reply to a post by A. Slim
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 08:50:18 AM
Perhaps the progressive liberalism that has been shoved down your throat
No, it's free market economics, namely by this organization (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dABwlNsg9GY), who I was told by a liberal has a far flung connection to the Koch Brothers. The Kochs contribute money and are board members of their umbrella organization.
Quotewhile attending college has affected your ability to think clearly.
May have, I had a
Greek Keynesian professor who proclaimed twice in class "
What's the problem with Socialism in America? It works GREAT in my country!"
Well, I knew that was BS at any rate, and this was before *his country* keeled over.
QuoteGood grief .... illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration? No sh**! What a concept! We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants and the negative effect they have on OUR economy.
No, you've only listed Fiscal impacts, and what you mentioned is still mostly just yet more Fiscal impacts. For the crimes, you've gone to an extreme, and acted as if this is the typical behavior.
There are violent illegals, but as a population they aren't nearly so violent as natural-born Hispanic Americans. Or Black Americans for that matter.
In fact, Linda Chavez, who I saw at the Western Conservative Summit this year, spoke about
the El Paso Miracle (http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle). A town that has had one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, several years running.
They have a very large Immigrant population, much of whom aren't legal, and they sit directly across from Ciudad Juarez, and yet...
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:15:43 AM
Not so, I will gladly go through each point if you wish it. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, nor did I start at.
What I learned of economics gradually showed it to me. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and you'd only realize it if you're familiar with more than a few core concepts to economics. Not something I picked up right away, no sir.
I apply both.
Immigration is a net benefit to economy, that is common sense. There is no economist on this planet that isn't of heterodox persuasion that would try to deny it.
The question is if Illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration in general to say it does not offer this benefit.
The conclusion that it does unfortunately has several obstacles, ones that I don't see it overcoming.
Legal immigration has always required -
-You have sponsors who will bankroll and house and feed your ass until you can do it yourself
-You prove to not be disease-ridden, in an actual hospital; go home if you are
-You are not illiterate or retarded in some way, requiring a complete cognitive makeover at our cost
-You are not toting a whole gaggle of freeloaders, standing behind you, hiding in the bushes / border, or in your belly
Today, the illegals are loud & proud that they fail every one of these measures, and loudly demand their free fixes to every one of these conditions.
There is no way to intelligently claim that one is the same as the other, or in the same universe, financially or economically.
I note your smarmy distinction of finance and economics, and sniffy use of "heterodox".....and duly announce that you are a mid 20's, arrogant yet ignorant, know-it-all that knows nothing of life or reality.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 19, 2014, 09:18:00 AM
Legal immigration has always required -
-You have sponsors who will bankroll and house and feed your ass until you can do it yourself
-You prove to not be disease-ridden, in an actual hospital; go home if you are
-You are not illiterate or retarded in some way, requiring a complete cognitive makeover at our cost
-You are not toting a whole gaggle of freeloaders, standing behind you, hiding in the bushes / border, or in your belly
Today, the illegals are loud & proud that they fail every one of these measures, and loudly demand their free fixes to every one of these conditions.
There is no way to intelligently claim that one is the same as the other, or in the same universe, financially or economically.
I note your smarmy distinction of finance and economics, and sniffy use of "heterodox".....and duly announce that you are a mid 20's, arrogant yet ignorant, know-it-all that knows nothing of life or reality.
Very eloquently said, Andy. :smile:
Quote from: keyboarder on August 19, 2014, 09:05:58 AM
Without the government's restructured provisions, they'd still be illegals getting over.
Don't you get it? We've been in an economic downward state for quite a few years
Yes, and this has nothing to do with immigration, illegal or non.
It has to do with the "stimulus" (that wasn't), keeping interest rates perpetually at 1%, heightening taxes in a recession (even a Keynesian will tell you that's obtuse), adding on yet more regulations onto an already over-regulated industry (banking & finance), and...
Healthcare reform (need I say more?).
QuoteGot a question. Does changing the status of illegals to homeless or immigrants take away the criminal aspect of their character?
If CATO is doing this, then please show it. They've never struck me as the PC sort, not giving a damn about "environmental protection" or being afraid to call a spade a spade when it comes to sociological factors, so it would be news to me.
QuoteIf these folks are willing to break our laws to gain access to our country, what situation will arise when they will decide to trample our laws again and again? Is this not what they are being taught? That all they have to do is show their ass and everything will come their way?
I'm not for Amnesty, if that's what you're asking.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 09:17:44 AM
No, it's free market economics, namely by this organization (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dABwlNsg9GY), who I was told by a liberal has a far flung connection to the Koch Brothers. The Kochs contribute money and are board members of their umbrella organization.
May have, I had a Greek Keynesian professor who proclaimed twice in class "What's the problem with Socialism in America? It works GREAT in my country!"
Well, I knew that was BS at any rate, and this was before *his country* keeled over.
No, you've only listed Fiscal impacts, and what you mentioned is still mostly just yet more Fiscal impacts. For the crimes, you've gone to an extreme, and acted as if this is the typical behavior.
There are violent illegals, but as a population they aren't nearly so violent as natural-born Hispanic Americans. Or Black Americans for that matter.
In fact, Linda Chavez, who I saw at the Western Conservative Summit this year, spoke about the El Paso Miracle (http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle). A town that has had one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, several years running.
They have a very large Immigrant population, much of whom aren't legal, and they sit directly across from Ciudad Juarez, and yet...
Give it a rest Slim. Crimes committed by illegals are not extremes! Prisons in California, Texas, Florida and Arizona are filled with them. The scenario about illegals having children on American soil and us having to support both of them is not an extreme either. Pass your college course and proceed onto real life.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 07:02:40 AM
The American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/how-does-immigration-affect-us-wages-and-jobs/) only found very small effect on wages.
A freakin blog, are you serious?
QuoteBritain, who has had for years a more "neo-liberal" immigration policy than us, saw unemployment shrink as their immigration rate grew. (http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc160/AlaskaSlim/Economics/migration-unemployment1-500x342_zps4c725ce8.png)
Irrelevant! We're not Europe.
QuoteIn truth, either it's positive, or there is no connection between Immigration and unemployment.
To explain:
- A job is a zero-sum game, someone takes that job, that job is gone. But when you move to the plural, jobs, you now have to take into account what conditions help to generate jobs.
Having more people, more ideas, more consumers as well as laborers, tends to makes that generating easier.
Texas is the only State to see Illegal immigration grow since 2008 (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/texas_is_only_state_where_ille.php). It's not hard to figure why.
It was written by a Republican, who was Perry's replacement as the Texas Agriculture Commissioner. And the stated agenda was to find the opposite of what it concluded.
More bull shit, your blog link does not include the average uneducated illegal.'
From your very own link:
And what about jobs? A 2011 study from AEI and a Partnership For A New American Economy finds the following:
1. Immigrants with advanced degrees boost employment for US natives. This effect is most dramatic for immigrants with advanced degrees from US universities working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The data comparing employment among the fifty states and the District of Columbia show that from 2000 to 2007, an additional 100 foreign-born workers in STEM fields with advanced degrees from US universities is associated with an additional 262 jobs among US natives. While the effect is biggest for US-educated immigrants working in STEM, immigrants with advanced degrees in general raised employment among US natives during 2000–2007: QuoteYeah, I get this is a hard pill to swallow, really I do. I have family in Arizona, they've seen the Cartel smugglers come past where they're at, and they live in Wickenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickenburg,_Arizona), which ain't exactly a border town.
But at the same time, I'm obligated to say this: economics does not constrain itself to political desires, it has its own laws, and those must be applied to know what it says.
Wiki?
Posting a bunch of BS, in no way builds your case, in fact, no where do any of your "so called" studies take into account Federal taxes feeding the coffers of the state, without which, there wouldn't be an illegal invasion.
Take Tennessee and show me where the people of the state benefited.
All Tennessee's Employment Growth Since 2000 Has Gone to Immigrants; Yet, Natives Accounted for 60% of Population Growthhttp://www.cnbc.com/id/101890969 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101890969)
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 19, 2014, 09:18:00 AM
Legal immigration has always required -
-You have sponsors who will bankroll and house and feed your ass until you can do it yourself
-You prove to not be disease-ridden, in an actual hospital; go home if you are
-You are not illiterate or retarded in some way, requiring a complete cognitive makeover at our cost
-You are not toting a whole gaggle of freeloaders, standing behind you, hiding in the bushes / border, or in your belly
Today, the illegals are loud & proud that they fail every one of these measures, and loudly demand their free fixes to every one of these conditions.
There is no way to intelligently claim that one is the same as the other, or in the same universe, financially or economically.
Washington (the state), says enforcement of Immigration laws there has cramped their
high skilled labor.
So no, this is a myth on two counts:
1. That illegal immigrants aren't high skilled.Indeed, almost half of illegal immigrants (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/08/Illegal-immigration-overstay-visas) were once legal immigrants with visas, we brought them here
because they had skills (it's also why nearly 40% of them are an Asian of some sort). They simply overstayed.
2.
Low skilled immigrants don't offer value to the economy.This was the last hurdle I had to cross. Just because a given worker may be low-skilled, does not mean they can't offer value.
In truth, the distinction of "low vs high" skilled is quite arbitrary, and didn't exist before the 1960s. To a business there
are two workers, but it goes more like this: "
There are those who make me money, and those who don't."
These companies are inviting the low-skilled immigrants right alongside the high skilled ones, so apparently, they think they're making money with them.
That's the market making a call about a market matter. That's not all there is to immigration, but on this issue, I was forced to concede it.
QuoteI note your smarmy distinction of finance and economics, and sniffy use of "heterodox"
No no, that wasn't off hand, that's an
actual term for certain schools of thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics) who aren't: Keynesian, Monetarist, Or (Neo)Classical.
Usually, it's anyone who doesn't affirm the Laws of Supply & Demand, or at least not completely, like say the Marxists or the Georgists /Geoists or... something else.
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 09:36:04 AM
Give it a rest Slim. Crimes committed by illegals are not extremes! Prisons
Quote Anecdotes, I won't stop you, but the actual incarceration rate of Foreign Hispanics, versus home grown Hispanics, is actually quite low (http://migrationinformation.org/sites/default/files/source_charts/rumbaut-table1-jun06.cfm), Foreign-born Mexicans don't even reach 1%, and the worst by far is Puerto Ricans (double that of Dominicans or Cubans), who by definition are American Citizens.
QuotePass your college course
The course? That was nearly a decade ago. Got an "A", if that means anything, I don't think it does considering who taught it.
Slim, I side with Andy and duly announce that you are a mid 20's, arrogant yet ignorant, know-it-all that knows nothing of life or reality.
I have a hunch that a few wake up calls and a huge dose of reality awaits you. :thumbsup:
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 10:11:06 AM
Slim, I side with Andy and duly announce that you are a mid 20's, arrogant yet ignorant, know-it-all that knows nothing of life or reality.
I have a hunch that a few wake up calls and a huge dose of reality awaits you. :thumbsup:
:biggrin:
That about sums it up.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 09:59:44 AM
Quote Anecdotes, I won't stop you, but the actual incarceration rate of Foreign Hispanics, versus home grown Hispanics, is actually quite low (http://migrationinformation.org/sites/default/files/source_charts/rumbaut-table1-jun06.cfm), Foreign-born Mexicans don't even reach 1%, and the worst by far is Puerto Ricans (double that of Dominicans or Cubans), who by definition are American Citizens.
The course? That was nearly a decade ago. Got an "A", if that means anything, I don't think it does considering who taught it.
There is such a thing as getting so deep in the weeds that you can no longer see the big picture.
Don't get so enamored of hyper-focused stats, pet theories, technical (gee-ain't-I-smart) terms....that you forget to notice the obvious and logical.
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 09:41:44 AM
A freakin blog, are you serious?
It's AEI's blog, not a personal one.
QuoteIrrelevant! We're not Europe.
Fine, here's one (http://s217.photobucket.com/user/AlaskaSlim/media/Economics/now-it-can-be-told-my-irish-an_zps2440de02.png.html?sort=3&o=12) across the entirety of the OECD.
QuoteMore bull shit, your blog link does not include the average uneducated illegal.
Hmmm, you're right, that isn't even the right link.... can't find it either.
Ah well, here's the full CATO Policy Analysis (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa732_web_1.pdf) in any event.
QuoteGenerally, low-income immigrants have
lower rates of welfare use than low-income
native-born citizens and receive smaller
benefits when they are the beneficiaries.
However, all immigrants are more likely to
receive means-tested welfare benefits than
all native-born Americans because immigrants
are poorer on average
QuotePosting a bunch of BS, in no way builds your case, in fact, no where do any of your "so called" studies take into account Federal taxes feeding the coffers of the state,
I don't know if I'm following your claim here. Though Federal money does get into the hands of the state for a variety of reasons, I'm not certain how this works in regards to immigration policy, and I wasn't speaking on it.
Regardless, here is a source for Immigrants being a net boon to Medicare (http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/2013_05_29.php), and here is a source for Illegals specifically contributing to Social Security (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm).
QuoteAll Tennessee's Employment Growth Since 2000 Has Gone to Immigrants; Yet, Natives Accounted for 60% of Population Growth
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101890969 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101890969)
It causes me to ask two questions:
1. Has out-of-state employment increased over this time as well?
2. What was picture before the Recession?
I ask the first, because it's quite possible Tennessee is "outsourcing" its workforce to other, more developed states.
I asked the second, because all too often people use the Recession as an excuse to forward their theories. It could be the Immigrants had their jobs, and the Americans had theirs too, but the Americans lost theirs when the recession hit.
I've seen people use the recession to say "Robots are replacing us, and not making new jobs (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/humans-need-not-apply-the-future-of-jobs-is-robotshaped-9673643.html)", and I've seen Liberals use it so as to say "The Bush tax cuts created no jobs (http://ourfuture.org/fact_sheet/ten-years-bush-tax-cuts-benefiting-rich)".
If were to analyze what the entirety of the economic business cycle does here, not just extrapolate temporary circumstances, then we need to control for it.
And indeed, we do have that data (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yws68cGdlcM).
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 19, 2014, 10:35:15 AM
There is such a thing as getting so deep in the weeds that you can no longer see the big picture.
What "big picture"? Economically, it's in three parts.
There are two factors of
production:
labor and
Capital.
We let Capital goes where it pleases, we let it go overseas to invest in foreign business ventures, we buy foreign capital to bring it back here, and we let Foreign Investors t place their capital in our businesses at their pleasure.
That is the Globalization of Capital, but for the economy to reach equilibrium while this goes on, labor too must in some respects be globalized. This both means more Americans working abroad, and more foreigners coming to work here.
That is the economic equation, and
just the economic equation. When it comes to Sociology or Politics, those are different calculations, and I'm not at all claiming to know them nearly as well.
QuoteDon't get so enamored of hyper-focused stats, pet theories, technical (gee-ain't-I-smart) terms....
I don't say this because "I' am smart", I barley skew average.
My analysis is simply happenstance. You could all learn the same if you chose to invest the same amount of time I did into it. I' am not special, and I'm quite adjusted to that fact.
Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 10:11:06 AMI have a hunch that a few wake up calls and a huge dose of reality awaits you. :thumbsup:
What I say now,
was my wake up call. The full application of Natural Law, and Emergent order.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 01:36:35 PM
What I say now, was my wake up call. The full application of Natural Law, and Emergent order.
Natural Law......Emergent Order......terms often spewed by the youthful anarchists and socialists.
Also reminds me of the other guy who claimed to be a really old lifelong conservative who was re-writing most of conservative doctrine. And everybody was wrong and he was right.
CPF vets.....who was that clown again ? He was the biggest yakker of them all, very angry, massive posts.
You aren't him re-imagined, are you slim ?
Quote from: suzziY on August 18, 2014, 06:02:11 PM
Perhaps you are all sick to death of the illegal immigration headlines, but brace yourselves for another round. Better yet...perhaps a few phone calls to your reps are in order. Definitely a government run amuck. Obviously we are no longer the United States of America, but rather the United States of Central America and Mexico. Peachy! No one except Rick Perry seems to be doing a damn thing about it.
Official: Second illegal immigrant wave of 30,000 coming in September, October
"A second wave of some 30,000 unaccompanied illegal minors from violence-ravaged Central American nations is expected to swamp the U.S.-Mexico border in September and October, a crisis that could be worse than the one that has already pushed 62,000 children into the U.S., according to a top immigration group.
"Right now it's just too hard for them to cross, but we expect when it cools down a little bit in August or in September, October, we'll see another surge again," said Tiffany Nelms with the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a key support group handling the current crisis. A second wave will pressure border agents and support groups far more than the previous surge when 62,000 arrived over six months....
...But, she added, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has been working overtime to find housing for the anticipated second wave.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/official-second-illegal-immigrant-wave-of-30000-coming-in-september-october/article/2552029)
Excellent! Right before the election.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 01:07:42 PM
Generally, low-income immigrants have
lower rates of welfare use than low-income
native-born citizens and receive smaller
benefits when they are the beneficiaries.
However, all immigrants are more likely to
receive means-tested welfare benefits than
all native-born Americans because immigrants
are poorer on average
OK, cut the bull shit, no one here is buying it!
We're talking about a wave of uneducated illegals coming into the country, people whom have absolutely no source of income.
And here you are trying to convince us they're not a drain on the economy. Really? Do you honestly think we're that stupid?
Wake up and see the real world, not a bunch of agenda driven stats.
There is absolutely no way in the world these people will ever repay the burden they place on the taxpayer, they're being encouraged to come, because the Marxists want two things, a voter base, and a way to dilute the American culture.
One other point, if you have something you want read, then post a damned excerpt, not some link to something you want us to waste our time reading to figure out your point.
That's not debating, that's just the act of an irritating kid.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 19, 2014, 02:27:04 PM
Natural Law......Emergent Order......terms often spewed by the youthful anarchists and socialists.
Then let's get to Brass Tacks.
What We Believe: Natural Law. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TSiJ2Gp058)
Emergent Order. (http://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/104)
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 03:48:36 PM
OK, cut the bull shit, no one here is buying it!
What "bull shit"?
Most immigrants who came here in the 19th century were illiterate and low-skilled, they still formed the backbone of this nation.
You're complaining about Mexicans now, being the same as Italians a 100 years ago. Somehow we muddle through it then, so why exactly do you think we can't do so now?
What's more, it's irrefutable immigration then grew our economy, so why would immigration now fail to do so?
QuoteWe're talking about a wave of uneducated illegals coming into the country, people whom have absolutely no source of income.
They have a worker participation rate of 93%. Somehow, they find the work, and they find it more consistently then Legal immigrants or the Native Born.
Indeed, this is why Milton Friedman likened Illegal immigration to pre-1914 immigration, calling it "immigration to jobs", whereas the legal sort was more likely to be the "immigration to welfare".
QuoteAnd here you are trying to convince us they're not a drain on the economy. Really? Do you honestly think we're that stupid?
You're once again confusing Fiscal concerns, with Economic ones.
Unless you think the Government is the economy, yes, this is wrong.
QuoteOne other point, if you have something you want read, then post a damned excerpt,
Fair enough.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:16:59 PM
What "bull shit"?
Most immigrants who came here in the 19th century were illiterate and low-skilled, they still formed the backbone of this nation.
You're complaining about Mexicans now, being the same as Italians a 100 years ago. Somehow we muddle through it then, so why exactly do you think we can't do so now?
What's more, it's irrefutable immigration then grew our economy, so why would immigration now fail to do so?
They also came because they wanted to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans, they knew, here they could find freedom and liberty and gladly participated in the culture.
Not like those demanding we accept their culture, rather than meld into ours.
Today we have a Marxist letting in murders and sex offenders, and you somehow think that mirrors the 19th century?
Are you willing to let these gang bangers live in your neighborhood?
Would you want a La Raza office in your town?
QuoteThey have a worker participation rate of 93%. Somehow, they find the work, and they find it more consistently then Legal immigrants or the Native Born.
I'm guessing you didn't have to compete for an entry level job, did you?
These illegals you claim have a 93% work participation, legally is another story, but assume that's the case, and with unemployment at historic lows not seen sine the last depression, your evidence supports my claim, they're displacing Americans out of the work force.
QuoteIndeed, this is why Milton Friedman likened Illegal immigration to pre-1914 immigration, calling it "immigration to jobs", whereas the legal sort was more likely to be the "immigration to welfare".
You're once again confusing Fiscal concerns, with Economic ones.
Unless you think the Government is the economy, yes, this is wrong.
Fair enough.
Quoting out of context and comparing it to the current situation does nothing to embolden your point.
What percentage of illegals need government assistance?
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 08:37:49 PM
They also came because they wanted to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans, they knew, here they could find freedom and liberty and gladly participated in the culture.
Careful, you're speaking like a Progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American).
"
In the United States, the term hyphenated American is an epithet commonly used from 1890 to 1920 to disparage Americans who were of foreign birth or origin, and who displayed an allegiance to a foreign country. It was most commonly used to disparage German Americans or Irish Americans (Catholics) who called for U.S. neutrality in World War I. Former President Theodore Roosevelt was an outspoken anti-hyphenate and Woodrow Wilson followed suit."
QuoteNot like those demanding we accept their culture, rather than meld into ours.
Assimilation has always been a two way street in America
The Founders did not place gifts under a Christmas Tree, that is something we inherited from German immigrants, who certain Founders, like Benjamin Franklin, did not like.
Further, around the turn of the 20th century there were 700 German newspapers being printed around the country, despite the fact that German immigration peaked in 1870s.
And then there's
Mutual Aid Societies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH7JczwOMhY), which are private-association provided "safety nets" that were intentionally stratified along religious, national, and ethnic lines.
And they work wonderfully, helping to ensure people in America looked to private association to solve their societal issues, rather than Governmental ones.
Which is
why Wilson's view on Hyphenated-Americans is in error. He was looking to get everyone invested in the U.S. Federal Government. "
We're all in this together" as the liberals like to say.
But that's the wrong model. Any Association Americans are involved in should be one they
chose to join. The association should compete, and work to appeal to those they want among their number, not simply take their membership for granted. Doing otherwise just creates a bloated, monolithic system, like we have today.
QuoteToday we have a Marxist letting in murders and sex offenders, and you somehow think that mirrors the 19th century?
In the 19th and early 20th century, we let in people who bombed Wall Street, assassinated the President (now now, don't get any ideas), and German agents that wrecked havoc on our industries before we were even at war.
Murderers? Sure, England intentionally populated us with crime-ridden folk, especially down in Georgia which was originally a Penal colony.
The 19th Century gave us the Irish gangs, and then later the Italian Mafia, people who not only killed but made organized killing an art form. Chinese crime syndicates equally made their way over here.
QuoteI'm guessing you didn't have to compete for an entry level job, did you?
Yes I did, I have immigrant coworkers still.
The issue though, is that I want a meritocracy, I want the best person available to to go for a given job. If the business thinks that's the immigrant, then it's THEIR prerogative to give it to them, because it's THEIR money.
You are trying to treat said business' money, as your own, or something you can at least decide what to do with for the "betterment of all".
That's Socialism.
QuoteThese illegals you claim have a 93% work participation, legally is another story, but assume that's the case, and with unemployment at historic lows not seen sine the last depression, your evidence supports my claim,
They're all against you. There is no connection between unemployment and immigration, everything I have provided establishes this.
You are assuming the economy is a
fixed-pie, and that is a common fallacy. To assume Jobs are fixed, you must also assume that Wealth is fixed, as the two are intertwined.
Further, if the economy were a fixed pie, if wealth is fixed, then that means you are admitting the Progressives are right, and that we should be concerned about "Wage inequality". After all, if it's a
fixed pie, that means the rich are getting richer off the backs of the poor whenever they increase their share of the wealth.
Solar is a progressive?
Kinky... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ce-zC_n8E#ws)
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 06:00:05 AM
The same way all immigrants have been doing it for centuries "with nothing but the shirts on their backs".
...and their children, and their gang members, and their diseases, and 3rd world culture.
Quote
Either they start new businesses, or they fill pre-existing labor needs.
They should learn Spanish first, then English. Then, take a bath. Then, they can go back, because we have plenty of labor for a free market system.
Quote
Here's the Comptroller's report (http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/6economic.html).
Note to self: don't let Susan Combs do any number crunching for me, because she is an idiot.
Quote
Their stated objective was to find that the illegals were a net drag on the State's economy, but they didn't.
That's because they are incompetent, uneducated government idiots who couldn't do financials for a lemonade stand.
Quote
I'm economically minded before I'm political,
Clearly not.
Quote
and even though I don't like what's going on,
Clearly the case.
Quote
especially with the kids wondering over here in this most recent bout, I can't ignore what Supply & Demand tells me.
It tells me that if we supply them with the benefits and subsidies they demand, then they will come here, and then get to be called economically beneficial by you, since Susan Combs said so.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:32:26 AM
I have to correct you here, the State's own Comptroller found Illegals added 2.1% to their economy in 2006, or $17.2 Billion.
What happened to confusing "economics" with "fiscal"?
Quote
Immigration is immigration, labor is labor, the economy doesn't care what your political status is.
Hence why it is a fiscal, and economical, drain.
Quote
Now there are sociological effects to be concerned about, so I'm not saying this should be taken as an open pass to let this problem grow.
I'm also really not a fan of those Subsidies,
Gee, don't go out on a limb like that. Here, let me show you I would make this statement:
"Subsidies are theft and the treasonous scum politicians responsible for implementing this theft should be sent to prison for the rest of their life at worst, at best, hung publicly".
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 07:02:40 AM
The American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/how-does-immigration-affect-us-wages-and-jobs/) only found very small effect on wages.
Nobody is arguing about a supply of legal immigrants satisfying a skill set demand. You're confusing skilled legal immigration with legal immigration. Illegals are the ones coming over illegaly. Why would you post this article to support your position, when it has nothing to do with your position? I'm curious why you would do this, intellectually.
Quote
Britain, who has had for years a more "neo-liberal" immigration policy than us, saw unemployment shrink as their immigration rate grew. (http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc160/AlaskaSlim/Economics/migration-unemployment1-500x342_zps4c725ce8.png)
Please explain this graph to me, if you would be so kind.
Quote
In truth, either it's positive, or there is no connection between Immigration and unemployment.
No, hon. You are confused. If there is a demand for a particular skill, that demand can be satisfied by any person legally able to fill it. This in no way supports your flawed premise that illegal immigrants are an economic benefit.
Quote
To explain:
A job is a zero-sum game, someone takes that job, that job is gone. But when you move to the plural, jobs, you now have to take into account what conditions help to generate jobs.
How does illegal immigration help these conditions?
Quote
Having more people, more ideas, more consumers as well as laborers, tends to makes that generating easier.
How so?
Quote
Texas is the only State to see Illegal immigration grow since 2008 (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/texas_is_only_state_where_ille.php). It's not hard to figure why.
You attribute this to illegals boosting the economy. I attribute this to their border size with Mexico and Texas' strong economy. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
Quote
It was written by a Republican,
Why would that matter?
Quote
who was Perry's replacement as the Texas Agriculture Commissioner. And the stated agenda was to find the opposite of what it concluded.
There was no benefit in the report. Please highlight one of the benefits.
Quote
Yeah, I get this is a hard pill to swallow, really I do. I have family in Arizona, they've seen the Cartel smugglers come past where they're at, and they live in Wickenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickenburg,_Arizona), which ain't exactly a border town.
You have not made the case yet for how illegal immigrants are a benefit to Texas.
Quote
But at the same time, I'm obligated to say this: economics does not constrain itself to political desires, it has its own laws, and those must be applied to know what it says.
You can worry about politics. I'll focus on data, common sense, and the free market. Illegal immigrants are a disaster to our economy.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 09:56:04 PM
Careful, you're speaking like a Progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American).
You already cornered the mkt on that one son.
I'll stop there, the rest of this is pure nonsense, none of these people jumped the border by the thousands, and all melded nicely into society..
But you still didn't answer my question: Are you willing to have a La Rara contingency within your own neighborhood?
Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 02:28:58 AM
What happened to confusing "economics" with "fiscal"?
I didn't, 2.1% was of the State's GDP. GDP is an economic metric.
Hence why it is a fiscal, and economical, drain.[/quote]
The market decides whether or not the labor is needed.
If you are you using the Gov't to decide who or what comes here, you are not being economical, you are being political.
You don't know whether or not economically we need them, only the market knows that, and that knowledge is decentralized.
Quote"Subsidies are theft and the treasonous scum politicians responsible for implementing this theft should be sent to prison for the rest of their life at worst, at best, hung publicly".
Sure, go ahead.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:16:59 PM
What "bull shit"?
Most immigrants who came here in the 19th century were illiterate and low-skilled, they still formed the backbone of this nation.
Yes and they also came here LEGALLY through such places as Ellis Island. They didn't just walk on in across the border.
Just a little point the leftists who want to drag immigration history up, like to ignore.
Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:50:56 AM
...and their children, and their gang members, and their diseases, and 3rd world culture.
All of which applied to the Italians, the Irish, the Poles. These aren't new objections.
They should learn Spanish first, then English. Then, take a bath. Then, they can go back, because we have plenty of labor for a free market system.[/quote]
You don't know that. You by definition, can't know, because you're not a business who might try to hire them.
QuoteThat's because they are incompetent, uneducated government idiots who couldn't do financials for a lemonade stand.
Actually foreigners are more entrepreneurial than the average American. Since immigration itself is a risk, risk in the wider economy is something they're more willing to take.
Clearly not.
Clearly the case.
QuoteIt tells me that if we supply them with the benefits and subsidies they demand,
Demanded what now? They didn't demand anything, are esteemed progressive friends us offered them to them, and some took 'em.
That's our fault for letting our Government be run by idiots, and our duty to fix the welfare state so it stops.
Quotethen they will come here, and then get to be called economically beneficial by you, since Susan Combs said so.
Since supply & demand says so.
Immigrants are labor, and they offer economic benefit. (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=74)
"
The Open Letter on Immigration reminds President Bush and all members of Congress of America's history as an immigrant nation, the overall economic and social benefits of immigration, and the power of immigration to lift the poor out of poverty."
"
Economists disagree about a lot of things but there is a consensus on many of the important issues surrounding immigration," said Alexander Tabarrok, Research Director at the Independent Institute and the primary author of the letter. "The consensus is that most Americans benefit from immigration and that the negative effects on low-skilled workers are somewhere between an 8% wage reduction to no loss in wages at all." Reflecting this consensus the signatories to the Open Letter include prominent economists involved in both Democratic and Republican administrations such as N. Gregory Mankiw (Harvard University), former Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and J. Bradford DeLong (University of California, Berkeley), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, as well as Alfred Kahn (Cornell University), Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board under President Jimmy Carter, and Paul McCracken (University of Michigan), Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Richard Nixon."
You're in a very Keynesian niche to claim they don't, not Free market.
Oh Jeez, is he still trying to make a case for another 30 thousand kids illegally crossing the border, that somehow they will magically pay their own way, never taking a dime from the American taxpayer?
This is getting way beyond the point of absurd, and bordering on insane.
Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 12:26:08 PM
Oh Jeez, is he still trying to make a case for another 30 thousand kids illegally crossing the border, that somehow they will magically pay their own way, never taking a dime from the American taxpayer?
? No I'm not.
30,000 kids are crossing the border, because
we don't have a legal immigration system that works.
When your legal immigration system doesn't work, immigrants have two options:
1. Break the law, or
2. Abuse whatever exceptions there are, like asylum, or in this case, asylum for kids.
And that's what the kids are, they aren't illegal immigrants, they're
asylum seekers, and there's far too may for that exception to absorb, as we weren't planning on a Central American melt down.
I also said before that the move there was likely to send the kids back.
Quote from: daidalos on August 20, 2014, 10:44:53 AM
Yes and they also came here LEGALLY through such places as Ellis Island. They didn't just walk on in across the border.
1. Yes they did cross the border, that's why Volunteers along our southern border in the 1890s tried to control the flow of
Chinese Immigrants.
But since they were irregulars and there was never more than 75 of them, they didn't get much done.
2. Ellis Island itself didn't start until the 1890s.
Ellis Island, also only rejected 3% of immigrants who ever went there, and it was a very smooth process to get through.
20 second medical exam, sign your name. That's all.
Today we legally reject more like 70%, and it's not because immigrants are appreciably different. It's because our laws changed.
We adopted laws the AFL-CIO wrote. That meant a process far more granular than just a sign-in book and a short check-up.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 12:36:14 PM
? No I'm not.
30,000 kids are crossing the border, because we don't have a legal immigration system that works.
When your legal immigration system doesn't work, immigrants have two options:
The system is not, and never has been broken. We are a Republican form of govt, meaning we are a Nation of laws, and if someone wants to enter the U.S., they, like those before them, follow the law of the land.
No other Nation on the planet has such an open door policy, excluding Europe, who is now dealing with it's own crippling illegal migrants.
Try walking into Mexico to live permanently and see what happens.
I'm curious, why do you advocate breaking the law, and secondly, why are you in support of people putting children in danger this way?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:38:45 AM
I didn't, 2.1% was of the State's GDP. GDP is an economic metric.
Note the title. They also reference the intellectually challenged comptroller's report.
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/TexasCostStudy_2014.pdf (http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/TexasCostStudy_2014.pdf)
Quote
The market decides whether or not the labor is needed.
Correct, but that has nothing to do with illegals being a fiscal drain. Illegals are a fiscal, and economic drain.
Quote
If you are you using the Gov't to decide who or what comes here, you are not being economical, you are being political.
Securing borders isn't being political.
Quote
You don't know whether or not economically we need them,
Yes I do. We don't need them.
Quote
only the market knows that, and that knowledge is decentralized.
Everybody knows. Why do you not know?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 12:36:14 PM
? No I'm not.
30,000 kids are crossing the border, because we don't have a legal immigration system that works.
When your legal immigration system doesn't work, immigrants have two options:
1. Break the law, or
2. Abuse whatever exceptions there are, like asylum, or in this case, asylum for kids.
And that's what the kids are, they aren't illegal immigrants, they're asylum seekers, and there's far too may for that exception to absorb, as we weren't planning on a Central American melt down.
I also said before that the move there was likely to send the kids back.
So, since "legal" immigration is not working we should just ignore existing laws and allow all "illegals" to enter? Perosnally, once I get to "illegal" that means they should not be allowed in.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:49:14 AM
All of which applied to the Italians, the Irish, the Poles. These aren't new objections.
We're talking about illegals. Do you know the difference between a legal and an illegal?
Quote
You don't know that.
Yes I do.
Quote
You by definition, can't know, because you're not a business who might try to hire them.
You're right, I'm not. That's because I sold my company that I started, that I grew to several states, that did. Part of that business was also understanding the economic and fiscal impact to the community. They are a net drain in a major way.
Quote
Actually foreigners are more entrepreneurial than the average American. Since immigration itself is a risk, risk in the wider economy is something they're more willing to take.
Again, we're not talking about legals. We're talking about illegals.
Quote
Demanded what now?
When you discuss supply and demand, you shouldn't take those words literal. They are concepts. The consumer doesn't walk into the store and say "I DEMAND YOU SELL ME THIS WIDGET!". I'm sorry I confused you.
Quote
They didn't demand anything, are esteemed progressive friends us offered them to them, and some took 'em.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=illegals+demanding (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=illegals+demanding)
Quote
That's our fault for letting our Government be run by idiots, and our duty to fix the welfare state so it stops.
It's not my fault. It's the Democrat's and RINO's fault.
Quote
Since supply & demand says so.
Immigrants are labor, and they offer economic benefit. (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=74)
"The Open Letter on Immigration reminds President Bush and all members of Congress of America's history as an immigrant nation, the overall economic and social benefits of immigration, and the power of immigration to lift the poor out of poverty."
"Economists disagree about a lot of things but there is a consensus on many of the important issues surrounding immigration," said Alexander Tabarrok, Research Director at the Independent Institute and the primary author of the letter. "The consensus is that most Americans benefit from immigration and that the negative effects on low-skilled workers are somewhere between an 8% wage reduction to no loss in wages at all." Reflecting this consensus the signatories to the Open Letter include prominent economists involved in both Democratic and Republican administrations such as N. Gregory Mankiw (Harvard University), former Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and J. Bradford DeLong (University of California, Berkeley), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, as well as Alfred Kahn (Cornell University), Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board under President Jimmy Carter, and Paul McCracken (University of Michigan), Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Richard Nixon."
You're in a very Keynesian niche to claim they don't, not Free market.
I didn't say anything about immigrants.
Please don't confuse those again.
Slim, I just read a few other of your posts. Stop intentionally conflating illegals with legals. That won't fly here.
Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:29:25 PM
Slim, I just read a few other of your posts. Stop intentionally conflating illegals with legals. That won't fly here.
The only groups in favor of what he contends, is socialist RINO and commies.
Can you say, Agenda?
Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 12:49:30 PM
The system is not, and never has been broken.
The law is broken.
There are only 4 points of legal entry, most of which Immigrants neither today nor in the past could have met.
1. You need to have skills a Bureaucrat is looking for. You may have skills in a trade, but if they aren't the ones the Government wants (say, a clocksmith, or a cable installer) regardless of if there is demand by business here for your particular skills, you can't come here.
2. You need to have family legally living within the United States, who are willing to vouch for you.
3. Failing the first two, you might qualify for the "Diversity Lottery" (Don't you just the love the PC name?)
The "Diversity Lottery", is where you're immigrating from a country where we don't get a lot of immigration from, some small-name European or African nation most likely.
If so, you have a 1 in 7 chance to get a slot. A slot to
possibly get in, pending a few more transaction costs, and not living within the general area of some group we don't like, even if you weren't a member.
4. The Final method, the EB-5 visa, be prepared to spend $500,000-$1M dollars in a ten year process where you must either start, transform, or save a business.
We are a Republican form of govt, meaning we are a Nation of laws, and if someone wants to enter the U.S., they, like those before them, follow the law of the land.
QuoteNo other Nation on the planet has such an open door policy
If you mean "more open then us", yes there is.
Singapore just approved a measure where they predict their native population will be outnumbered by the "foreign worker" by over a million.
John Stossel, a (then) ABC reporter, managed to go to Hong Kong and start a business selling T-shirts, all within a single day.
Both places are essentially microcosms of what we
used to be. The 19th century, when we experienced more economic growth than at any other point in our history before or since.
I want that back.
QuoteI'm curious, why do you advocate breaking the law,
The law was written by a Union.
I worked for a Union once,
can't say I'd recommend the experience.
In this country, we're seeing people all over revolt against laws written by or for Unions. Take this case (http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/29/would-cesar-chavez-have-wanted-forced-un) in California, of people rejecting overtures by
Hugo Chavez's Union no less.
Now I would
prefer the law to be followed, but the law, equally, should be tied to market forces. If it isn't, the law
will be broken, it doesn't matter what you or I feel on the matter.
Supply & Demand is stronger than any man-made law, it is stronger than
fiat.
Quoteand secondly, why are you in support of people putting children in danger this way?
I have said
twice now "Send the kids back".
In their particular case, they aren't breaking the law, simply taking advantage of an exception we put in it.
Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
The only groups in favor of what he contends, is socialist RINO and commies.
Can you say, Agenda?
Can you say, Judge Napiltano?
"
As President Obama and Congress grapple for prominence in the debate over immigration, both have lost sight of the true nature of the issue at hand.
The issue the politicians and bureaucrats would rather avoid is the natural law. The natural law is a term used to refer to human rights that all persons possess by virtue of our humanity. These rights encompass areas of human behavior where individuals are sovereign and thus need no permission from the government before making choices in those areas. Truly, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, only God is sovereign – meaning He is the source of His own power.
Having received freedom from our Creator and, in America, thanks to the values embraced by most of the Founding Fathers, individuals are sovereign with respect to our natural rights. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that our sovereignty is a part of our human nature, and our humanity is a gift from God. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson himself recognized personal sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote about Nature's God as the Creator and thus the originator of our inalienable human rights."
He applies the Textual school of the Constitution.
Natural Law, was cited as precedent by Founding Era Jurists in many of their decisions. It is the cornerstone to English Common Law, which was the framework for the Constitution.
It's alright if you don't agree with it, but if you're not first disproving its claims, then you are, off-hand, rejecting our heritage.
And no, by "heritage", I' am not referring to us being a "nation of immigrants". I'm referring to treating the Individual, as Sovereign.
Slim, you are becoming boring. You have yet to address the difference between legal and illegal.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 01:40:13 PM
The law is broken.
No it's not! And try keeping your answers a bit shorter, if possible.
QuoteThere are only 4 points of legal entry, most of which Immigrants neither today nor in the past could have met.
Too damn bad!
Quote1. You need to have skills a Bureaucrat is looking for. You may have skills in a trade, but if they aren't the ones the Government wants (say, a clocksmith, or a cable installer) regardless of if there is demand by business here for your particular skills, you can't come here.
Irrelevant!
Quote2. You need to have family legally living within the United States, who are willing to vouch for you.
That's a start.
Quote3. Failing the first two, you might qualify for the "Diversity Lottery" (Don't you just the love the PC name?)
The "Diversity Lottery", is where you're immigrating from a country where we don't get a lot of immigration from, some small-name European or African nation most likely.
It's called balance.
QuoteIf so, you have a 1 in 7 chance to get a slot. A slot to possibly get in, pending a few more transaction costs, and not living within the general area of some group we don't like, even if you weren't a member.
Tough break, isn't it?
Quote4. The Final method, the EB-5 visa, be prepared to spend $500,000-$1M dollars in a ten year process where you must either start, transform, or save a business.
Money you'll get back, it's called "Investment". Nice try at sleight of hand there.
QuoteWe are a Republican form of govt, meaning we are a Nation of laws, and if someone wants to enter the U.S., they, like those before them, follow the law of the land.
If you mean "more open then us", yes there is.
Singapore just approved a measure where they predict their native population will be outnumbered by the "foreign worker" by over a million.
John Stossel, a (then) ABC reporter, managed to go to Hong Kong and start a business selling T-shirts, all within a single day.
Both places are essentially microcosms of what we used to be. The 19th century, when we experienced more economic growth than at any other point in our history before or since.
I want that back.
Singapore has their own reasons for lax immigration laws, they are trying to become autonomous.
QuoteThe law was written by a Union.
I worked for a Union once, can't say I'd recommend the experience.
In this country, we're seeing people all over revolt against laws written by or for Unions. Take this case (http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/29/would-cesar-chavez-have-wanted-forced-un) in California, of people rejecting overtures by Hugo Chavez's Union no less.
So that's your reasoning for breaking the law, you believe it was written by unions?
I believe you're referring to the Bracero program.
Read and learn. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws (http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws)
QuoteNow I would prefer the law to be followed, but the law, equally, should be tied to market forces. If it isn't, the law will be broken, it doesn't matter what you or I feel on the matter.
Supply & Demand is stronger than any man-made law, it is stronger than fiat.
I have said twice now "Send the kids back".
In their particular case, they aren't breaking the law, simply taking advantage of an exception we put in it.
No it should not, it should be based on ones ability to pay their own way, not become a burden on the taxpayer, it's really that simple.
Try Australia, they have a simple requirement, prove you have a much needed skill and can show you can support yourself, or someone that will in the country.
Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:16:36 PM
Note the title.
Why does that matter? They don't mention a single statistic from the comptrollers report, neither 2.1%, nor $17.2 billion is mentioned anywhere in this source of yours, and that's your basis for saying I confused fiscal with economic.
QuoteCorrect, but that has nothing to do with illegals being a fiscal drain.
Fiscal drain is a tangent, what I stated is that they are an economic benefit because immigration is an economic benefit.
That they're illegal doesn't matter to the economy, because "illegal" is a political distinction, not an economic one.
Economics, doesn't conform to political desires.
France would get an economic benefit from going through with their sale of that carrier to Russia. They'd be breaking their own trade laws as well as their sanctions in doing it, but economically
and economically alone, it's a beneficial action.
The same to blood diamonds. Engaging in the trade is economically beneficial, that people suffer because of it, to the economy, is beside the point.
The economy can be amoral, and it can invite dumb actions. It is not mutually exclusive to "good things" or "good actions", or in this case,
legal actions.
QuoteYes I do. We don't need them.
No you don't, you don't know how many laborers we need because that is a moving target. Collecting the information to figure out takes so long, that it would be out of date the moment you compiled it.
Only the market knows the answer to this in real time, thus, it should be the market to determine it.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:00:00 PM
That they're illegal doesn't matter to the economy, because "illegal" is a political distinction, not an economic one.
Economics, doesn't conform to political desires.
So to you there is no difference between wetback trash who do not deserve air, and the LEGAL immigrants who followed the rules?
Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 02:46:18 PM
No it's not!
Yes it is, there are only 4 point of legal entry, and none of them balance out with the labor demands immigration is apart of. We are
incentivizing illegal immigration by not addressing it.
We for instance reject over 100,000 high skilled immigrants each year, because we don't offer enough H1B visas.
Companies still need them, so they go cynical to get them. Either they hire them when they "show up" at the door, and go to bat for them in the courts so they can stay, or they'll intentionally get them the wrong visa (like a visitor one) so they can at least be legal temporarily. Or for good if our officials don't notice the "error".
And remember, nigh-half of illegal immigrants, once were legal.
QuoteMoney you'll get back, it's called "Investment". Nice try at sleight of hand there.
No slight.
You only get your money back if the business succeeds. Since "save a business" is one, guess how many do that, and get their money back?
But I'm not worried about investors. I'm worried about anyone who doesn't have cash like that upfront, who wouldn't qualify.
QuoteSingapore has their own reasons for lax immigration laws, they are trying to become autonomous.
How far back are you thinking? They've been independent
since 1965. And they didn't always have an immigration policy this lax, they built up to it.
QuoteSo that's your reasoning for breaking the law, you believe it was written by unions?
Yeah, because the Unions of course are rent seekers looking to protect their turf.
They shouldn't be "at the table" for immigration policy, much less writing it in their back rooms.
QuoteI believe you're referring to the Bracero program.
Not exactly. Bracero had existed for decades, what concerns me is the period it was managed under Eisenhower.
Under his purview, illegal immigration dropped by
95%, and he did it without adding a single border agent to the 1,000 numbered roster.
I say he built a model to follow, a model we should return to. It would address what is actually causing illegal immigration, and solve it in a way that wouldn't grow the government.
Quote from: quiller on August 20, 2014, 10:10:24 PM
So to you there is no difference between wetback trash who do not deserve air, and the LEGAL immigrants who followed the rules?
Nearly Half of illegals, once were legal. What do you think the economic distinction is for them?
It's also pretty rash to call them "wetback", considering more and more of them are Asian.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:31:39 PM
Nearly Half of illegals, once were legal. What do you think the economic distinction is for them?
You did not answer my question, and I too am tired of your troll behavior evading why you conflate legal and illegal, when it is a matter of established laws, and the utter failure of the Democratic Party to enforce those laws.
Yes, troll. You're a total lying fraud.
PROVE WHAT I QUOTED ABOVE. I want an established legitimate source. Don't offload by saying I need to read a whole site or book or library. I want the link and direct quote applying to YOUR QUOTED STATEMENT ONLY.
QuoteIt's also pretty rash to call them "wetback", considering more and more of them are Asian.
I wasn't even starting to
warm up. My ancestors were legal, learned English, worked hard and didn't suck welfare dollars or squirt out fatherless children. You bet your lying troll arse I have things to say about wetbacks, and if they're Asian they're Cargotainer fodder, which is far more cumbersome to say. Get used to expediency.
Quote from: quiller on August 20, 2014, 11:47:04 PM
You did not answer my question, and I too am tired of your troll behavior evading why you conflate legal and illegal
Show me an economic difference.
Or to make this easier...
Show me how or why Illegal immigrants don't contribute to the economy.
At a 93% labor participation rate, you're at an uphill battle.
QuoteYes, troll. You're a total lying fraud.
Trolls are people who incite argument for its own sake. You can be rest assured that I believe every single word that I have posted here.
QuotePROVE WHAT I QUOTED ABOVE.
Okay... I already posted one:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 09:46:34 AM
1. That illegal immigrants aren't high skilled.
Indeed, almost half of illegal immigrants (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/08/Illegal-immigration-overstay-visas) were once legal immigrants with visas, we brought them here because they had skills (it's also why nearly 40% of them are an Asian of some sort). They simply overstayed.
QuoteI wasn't even starting to warm up. My ancestors were legal, learned English, worked hard
And likely dealt with a far better immigration system then what we have today.
Let me put this way, dealing with our immigration system
today compared to
then, is like dealing with our
TAX system today, compared to then.
Only, you're livelihood is more consistently on the line, and you don't always understand the language being thrown at you over a "problem" when they come up.
You also can't outsource the problem to an expert, unless you're rich, or have an employer willing to go to bat for you.
Quoteand didn't suck welfare dollars or squirt out fatherless children.
Actually, they're more solid on families (http://family-studies.org/immigrants-marriage-family-class/) than native African-Americans.
Women may have kids out of wedlock, but they're more likely to marry someone afterwards. At a higher rate than whites actually.
I *blame* the culture. BP
Link was where, again? Direct quote I specifically asked for from your alleged source was where, again? Some blind link I can not see and evaluate as legitimate from an evasive double-talking troll like you?
I was not born yesterday or the day before. I do not open blind links from people who play evasive games here like you have, mixing illegals and legal immigrants together.
Raise your game here, son. You have not proved that more than half of all illegals were once legals. Pat yourself on the back later. And cut the asides having nothing to do with a straight answer, which mysteriously you repeatedly fail to give.
Quote from: quiller on August 21, 2014, 12:48:06 AM
Link was where, again? Direct quote I specifically asked for from your alleged source was where, again? Some blind link I can not see and evaluate as legitimate from an evasive double-talking troll like you?
What the hell are you talking about? It's
Breitbart.com, can you not go to that site?
I just checked it again, both on it's own, and through the post, it works
fine.
Here's an Image cap of it:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FNighillegal_zps14697ec7.png&hash=9b92ebc0527072abef493201afcd5495e85a1363)
You're jumping to conclusions. The problem, whatever it is, is on
your end.
I just looked up what a "blind link" is, and unless I'm missing something, ah, bullshit.
This is what pops up when I point to the link as posted:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FBreitbart_zps4e324644.png&hash=ade0ebb405e83ff499b058ab5be4dcd23368b1b5)
This is the text of the link:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/08/Illegal-immigration-overstay-visas (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/08/Illegal-immigration-overstay-visas)
This is what you see in your address bar when you get to the link:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FBreatibat2_zpsa5cbd733.png&hash=af39474968b1aa18cb9a0fdda66847110efd6588)
You aren't re-directed, you don't go through anything else, you just go there.
So once again, whatever the problem is; your end.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:00:00 PM
Why does that matter? They don't mention a single statistic from the comptrollers report, neither 2.1%, nor $17.2 billion is mentioned anywhere in this source of yours, and that's your basis for saying I confused fiscal with economic.
If you understood what GDP is and how it's calculated, you wouldn't say something as stupid as "illegals are good for the economy". You may think larger government and diseases are great, but your broken window idiocy makes you look like the liberal you're trying to pretend to not be.
Quote
Fiscal drain is a tangent, what I stated is that they are an economic benefit because immigration is an economic benefit.
If you conflate "immigration" with "illegal immigration" one more time, you're gone. This isn't a forum for you to run through pages to post crap and promote a false narrative.
Quote
That they're illegal doesn't matter to the economy, because "illegal" is a political distinction, not an economic one.
Wrong. They drain the economy.
Quote
Economics, doesn't conform to political desires.
Incorrect. Income taxes, for example, hurt the economy. Minimum wage, for example, hurts the economy. Those are not free-market concepts, but top-down control by political desires.
Quote
France would get an economic benefit from going through with their sale of that carrier to Russia. They'd be breaking their own trade laws as well as their sanctions in doing it, but economically and economically alone, it's a beneficial action.
Yeah, France is doing great.
Quote
The same to blood diamonds. Engaging in the trade is economically beneficial, that people suffer because of it, to the economy, is beside the point.
That has nothing to do with your claim that illegals are good for the economy.
Quote
The economy can be amoral, and it can invite dumb actions. It is not mutually exclusive to "good things" or "good actions", or in this case, legal actions.
You are conflating the free market with the economy. The free market is hurt by a larger government. The illegals hurt moral for normal citizens and Americans, because they are a justification by politicians for a larger government and spending, reaped from taxpayers that would otherwise go back into the economy. The free market within our borders works just fine, and we don't rely on the third world to boost our economy. As government is reduced, the economy improves, because free markets boosts the economy. It's sad I have to explain this to someone who is in their 20s who went to college.
Quote
No you don't, you don't know how many laborers we need because that is a moving target.
Knowing how many laborers are needed has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The free market handles supply and demand just fine. With the borders closed and secure, the free market finds labor just fine. One positive side about libertarians is they understand the free market. You don't understand the free market at all, nor do you want a secure border. This means you are a liberal.
We allow liberals to post here, so you don't have to keep this charade up. Liberal arguments depend a lot on obfuscation. I made a post about liberal troll tactics a year or so ago: http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/cpf-house-cleaning-and-liberal-troll-tactics/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/cpf-house-cleaning-and-liberal-troll-tactics/)
You need to cut your crap out out. Liberals don't have the intellect to pull this crap on us normal, experienced member. This may work somewhere else, but not here. I know you are a liberal, so cut it it out.
Quote
Collecting the information to figure out takes so long, that it would be out of date the moment you compiled it.
Only the market knows the answer to this in real time, thus, it should be the market to determine it.
The borders need to be closed. The illegal aliens are a drain on our economy, and hurt the country.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:29:52 PM
Yes it is, there are only 4 point of legal entry, and none of them balance out with the labor demands immigration is apart of. We are incentivizing illegal immigration by not addressing it.
Did you miss my entire answer?
No it's not!
And try keeping your answers a bit shorter, if possible.And now the rest of the answer to "No It's Not Broken".
Just because you say it isn't make it so. This country has always taken in immigrants, but had you read the link I posted, you'd have noted, there is a limit to just how many are allowed to enter and from where, and your support of open borders restricts those wanting to follow the rules, because a bunch of line jumpers usurped their chance at making a better life for themselves.
QuoteWe for instance reject over 100,000 high skilled immigrants each year, because we don't offer enough H1B visas.
Companies still need them, so they go cynical to get them. Either they hire them when they "show up" at the door, and go to bat for them in the courts so they can stay, or they'll intentionally get them the wrong visa (like a visitor one) so they can at least be legal temporarily. Or for good if our officials don't notice the "error".
Then close the damn border and give the legal ones a shot.
QuoteAnd remember, nigh-half of illegal immigrants, once were legal.
No slight.
That's supposed to be a good thing?
QuoteYou only get your money back if the business succeeds. Since "save a business" is one, guess how many do that, and get their money back?
Who said life was fair? There are costs associated with taking risks, and going into business is one of them.
Obviously you've never opened a business o you wouldn't have posted such a stupid response.
QuoteBut I'm not worried about investors. I'm worried about anyone who doesn't have cash like that upfront, who wouldn't qualify.
Why? Why does it bother your bleeding heart, that someone you'll never meet, don't know even exists can't come here and live?
Think about that myopic idiocy for a moment. You're crying over someone you imagine might be suffering because they want to leave the hell hole they live in.
And you have the audacity to call me a lib? Get a clue!
QuoteHow far back are you thinking? They've been independent since 1965. And they didn't always have an immigration policy this lax, they built up to it.
OK?
QuoteYeah, because the Unions of course are rent seekers looking to protect their turf.
They shouldn't be "at the table" for immigration policy, much less writing it in their back rooms.
Not exactly. Bracero had existed for decades, what concerns me is the period it was managed under Eisenhower.
Under his purview, illegal immigration dropped by 95%, and he did it without adding a single border agent to the 1,000 numbered roster.
I say he built a model to follow, a model we should return to. It would address what is actually causing illegal immigration, and solve it in a way that wouldn't grow the government.
Yes, it's called sealing the border best we can, reinstating quotas and selecting the best people to enter this country.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Oh, I get it, we need to save the world population. But what about those that want to come, but can't make the trip,, should we sent transport and bring them here, would that satisfy your bleeding heart?
Don't try and claim the immigration system is broken and keeping good people out, when all they have to do is walk across the border and be granted amnesty.
What is broken however, is no one is expected to follow the damn laws!
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 12:40:58 AM
Show me an economic difference.
Or to make this easier...
Show me how or why Illegal immigrants don't contribute to the economy.
At a 93% labor participation rate, you're at an uphill battle.
Trolls are people who incite argument for its own sake. You can be rest assured that I believe every single word that I have posted here.
Let me be blunt, you won't last much longer if you keep trolling that bull shit! I proved your claim to be false, yet you insist on posting fallacies, that shit don't fly here, we have thousands of readers, and repeating lies is something this forum frowns on.
So keep it up, if you're looking to get booted.
Slim, the majority of us in this forum seem to comprehend the difference between LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration. It doesn't take a "degree", list of stated statistics or lectures to understand that both have different impacts on our economy. To try to convince us that ILLEGAL immigration has had a positive impact on our economy is futile, ridiculous and quite frankly, now an insult to our intelligence. Most of us in here understand basic mathematics and are able to use simple logic along with having observed and experienced what is going on first hand.
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 05:02:52 AM
Let me be blunt, you won't last much longer if you keep trolling that bull shit! I proved your claim to be false, yet you insist on posting fallacies, that shit don't fly here, we have thousands of readers, and repeating lies is something this forum frowns on.
So keep it up, if you're looking to get booted.
Liberals and Marxists just never want to come out and say what they are. That says a lot about what they believe.
Quote from: taxed on August 21, 2014, 04:09:44 AM
Wrong. They drain the economy.
Alright then, prove it. Show me an estimate I can look at.
Further, distinguish economically how these immigrant categories differ.
Welfare? No, legals take more, because they qualify for more.
Labor participation? No, Legal immigrants work less than illegals, likely because they qualify for more welfare.
Skills? In an age where nigh-half of illegals were once H1-B visa holders, that is no longer clear.
Indeed, this last point is why making the distinction is difficult.
Do you wish to distinguish between illegal Immigrants who cross the border, and those we let in, only to let their visas lapse? As that's the only way we're going to get anywhere.
QuoteIncorrect. Income taxes, for example, hurt the economy. Minimum wage, for example, hurts the economy. Those are not free-market concepts, but top-down control by political desires.
The specific settings to policies are controlled by the politik, but their full out-and-out effects are controlled by Supply & Demand.
Take for instance the Laffer Curve. It holds that the tax
rate does not fully control Tax
Revenue. If you set the Tax rate at 60%, that does not mean you will get a 60% share of private incomes. More likely, you will get less in return then if you had set the Tax rate at a lower value.
Additionally, you'll get more than if you had set it at a rate close to 0%, or at a rate
higher than 60%.
As to Minimum wage, it is undermined by inflation, and by the adjustment of prices. Eventually, if left unadjusted, it becomes close to meaningless, as our current minimum wage sits.
It also never achieves is true goal, for as long as it takes effect, and as Thomas Sowell likes to say: "
The True Minimum Wage is Zero."
QuoteThe illegals hurt moral for normal citizens and Americans, because they are a justification by politicians for a larger government and spending,
If you're willing to say this, then I think you'll agree that there exists the political capital to draw a wall around our Welfare state. We simply need to take advantage of it, and sell it in our policies.
I had a Mexican-American coworker once, and we went back and forth several times on immigration, because he *ironically* was for, "sending all the Mexicans back."
He told me stories of his immigrant neighbor and how they were violating building codes in renovating their property, a story of a mother in grocery store buying a stack of pizzas with Food Stamps, and he even brought me the pay stub of one of his immigrant coworkers (mum's the word on how he got that), to ask if I thought he was paying his "fair share" in his taxes.
Now, despite all of this, he still voted for Obama in 2012. I actually helped him do it, by covering for him at work while he went and voted.
But last I talked with him, he was pissed at Obama, for the scandals that were erupting with the IRS, Obamacare's complete failure to be anything it was talked up to be, and yes, his handelling of Immigration.
So I asked him once "
If Ted Cruz (who he said he liked somewhat) proposed a measure where we cut off the immigrants from welfare, would you be alright with reforming our Immigration laws, so that they let more people in legally?"
He said alright, so long as we didn't enact amnesty.
And then I asked this "With that platform, would you elect Ted Cruz President?". He said he wasn't sure, I then asked if it was against Hilary, and he said "yes".
Now, this is just
one person of course, and I shouldn't draw too much upon it, but I believe he is a microcosm to show, that immigration reform as we want it to be would be possible if we
attacked the welfare instead of pussyfooting around it.
People understand that we're low on money, they understand a lot of the illegal immigrants don't pay income taxes.
How hard can it be then, to say "let's cut them off"?
QuoteThe free market within our borders works just fine, and we don't rely on the third world to boost our economy.
Yes we do, we buy products from the 3rd world all the time, we buy raw resources, we buy intermediate goods to put into our final goods, which we then largely sell back to them (cars for one). We spin capital in and out of their economies when we think they're doing good, and remove it when we think they're doing bad.
Again, both capital and Products go across our borders all the time, and Capital is half the equation to Production.
For the economy to be in equilibrium then, labor too, the other half of the equation, must be mobile.
Forcing disequilibrium, makes us poorer and uncompetitive.
QuoteKnowing how many laborers are needed has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The free market handles supply and demand just fine. With the borders closed and secure, the free market finds labor just fine.
We have labor shortages all over.
Silicon valley is half Foreign Born, because we can't produce the technical-inclined people we need fast enough to support our own system. Without them, our system would collapse.
And yeah, many of them are the very 40% of
former H1-B visa holders I spoke of earlier, so I'm not playing fast & loose here.
QuoteOne positive side about libertarians is they understand the free market. You don't understand the free market at all, nor do you want a secure border. This means you are a liberal.
Then why is CATO, a libertarian-think tank on the Free market (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/realities-behind-immigration-debate), pushing for what I have said?
Indeed, going down the line of institutes & Foundations, Adam Smith (http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tag/immigration/), Fraser (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=21641), Independent (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4679), Mises (http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame) Manhattan (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_newrep-we_cant_stop.htm), LearnLiberty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM), why do they all sound like me?
Or rather, why did
they teach
me to sound like this?
Why did Milton Friedman trash Legal immigration in favor of Illegals?
Why is it like this? Where are the Libertarian Organizations claiming the opposite?
All ass kiss slim,
Son, your incessant misuse of nitnoid, random, obtuse, vague, unrelated, opaque, self-satisfying minutiae......has been maxed out here.
We know it's just what self-important little shits do, despite their total lack of experience, real knowledge, or real understanding.......but the day you figure out how to stop doing it, and engage people in an adult, sincere manner, is the day that you'll be accepted by people.
Quote from: taxed on August 21, 2014, 06:27:35 AM
Liberals and Marxists just never want to come out and say what they are. That says a lot about what they believe.
QuoteWe allow liberals to post here, so you don't have to keep this charade up.
I' am Free Marketeer, not a liberal.
I believe in Natural Law: Life, Liberty, Property, as it was defined by John Locke. I believe in American Exceptionalism
strictly as Alex de Tocqueville defined it.
This means I'm against Abortion, for it violates life, I'm against the Affordable Care Act, for it violates Liberty, and I'm Against Department of the Interior's management of Alaskan Oil Reserves, for it violates property.
The Second part means that America is unique for how it (once) used Private Association to address societal ills, instead of Public organization, as nearly all other nations have done.
I believe in the presence of Emergent order, which gave form to Natural Law, Economics, Common Law, and Language.
This means I'am suspicious if not in outright contempt of any laws that seek to place themselves above Common Law.
Emergent order is affirmed by it, something in the very fabric reality. It is an immutable truth you can choose to respect, but
never ignore, for its effects will be felt regardless.
Last, but not least, I believe in the Lord my God, my savior and sovereign, who constructed Natural Law as it Exists, which is the key itself to Humans understanding Divine law. The Lord was gracious enough to appoint St. Thomas Aquinas, the namesake of my First High School, to write extensively on the existence of Natural Law and its effects.
I thank him equally for creating Father Robert Sirroco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu7dGHLodxs), who helped to further bridge my Catholic beliefs to my Economic imperatives, along with everyone who has joined with him at the Acton institute.
And I thank him for creating the Founders, whose Socratic example of being antagonistic to political power, and harboring great love of Liberty, served as a personal inspiration to me, on top of their creation of a nation in which we live, the
one human society on Earth that has come the closest to truly embracing what Natural Law affirms.
And I finally thank him for allowing me to know it. It was by pure chance I could. I' am humbled by it.
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 04:56:42 AM
Did you miss my entire answer?
No it's not! And try keeping your answers a bit shorter, if possible.
Okay, you're going to have to show me what it is you mean, as I thought winding down my points to as few as possible was what you meant.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 21, 2014, 06:42:23 AM
All ass kiss slim,
Son, your incessant misuse of nitnoid, random, obtuse, vague, unrelated, opaque, self-satisfying minutiae......has been maxed out here.
I'm long winded, I'll give you that, and I don't always know when to hold back.
But that's all it is. I'm not showing off, I'm not being deceitful, and I'm not
trying to lose you.
I sometimes go at my own pace, and expect people to pretty much read my mind. That's a flaw of mine, I'll agree.
But something else:
I did not make this personal,
nor do I wish to.
From start, even before I took off here, you all decided to call me "liberal" or something worse, from me simply demonstrating dissent on the topic.
Now though, I have shown that yes, Free Market Economists
do in fact affirm what I say. It's true, dissent
on the Right exists for this topic.
This
does not mean you now have to agree with me, but I would appreciate the toning down of the epithets, if only just slightly. In exchange, I'll try to better cater to your requests.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 06:55:09 AM
Okay, you're going to have to show me what it is you mean, as I thought winding down my points to as few as possible was what you meant.
There is a Hell of a lot more to my reply, than that one line.
Is it that you can't refute what I wrote, is that why you ignored all of reply # 79 and 80?
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 07:15:42 AM
There is a Hell of a lot more to my reply, than that one line.
Yes, but what's the point if you're telling me you don't find it comfortable to read?
I'd be making an effort, just to further frustrate you.
Show me what you mean, and then I'll tailor my response accordingly.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 07:18:56 AM
Yes, but what's the point if you're telling me you don't find it comfortable to read?
I'd be making an effort, just to further frustrate you.
Show me what you mean, and then I'll tailor my response accordingly.
Case in point.
QuoteWe allow liberals to post here, so you don't have to keep this charade up.
Talk about long winded, a simple "I have Libertarian leanings" would have sufficed.
Instead, you go on some nonsensical rant?
Simple answers serve to make your point, bloviating is a sign of deeper issues, usually associated with consequences only a professional can address.
Your need to myopically focus on a single issue screams volumes about your person more than anything.
Seek help!
QuoteI' am Free Marketeer, not a liberal.
I believe in Natural Law: Life, Liberty, Property, as it was defined by John Locke. I believe in American Exceptionalism strictly as Alex de Tocqueville defined it.
This means I'm against Abortion, for it violates life, I'm against the Affordable Care Act, for it violates Liberty, and I'm Against Department of the Interior's management of Alaskan Oil Reserves, for it violates property.
The Second part means that America is unique for how it (once) used Private Association to address societal ills, instead of Public organization, as nearly all other nations have done.
I believe in the presence of Emergent order, which gave form to Natural Law, Economics, Common Law, and Language.
This means I'am suspicious if not in outright contempt of any laws that seek to place themselves above Common Law.
Emergent order is affirmed by it, something in the very fabric reality. It is an immutable truth you can choose to respect, but never ignore, for its effects will be felt regardless.
Last, but not least, I believe in the Lord my God, my savior and sovereign, who constructed Natural Law as it Exists, which is the key itself to Humans understanding Divine law. The Lord was gracious enough to appoint St. Thomas Aquinas, the namesake of my First High School, to write extensively on the existence of Natural Law and its effects.
I thank him equally for creating Father Robert Sirroco, who helped to further bridge my Catholic beliefs to my Economic imperatives, along with everyone who has joined with him at the Acton institute.
And I thank him for creating the Founders, whose Socratic example of being antagonistic to political power, and harboring great love of Liberty, served as a personal inspiration to me, on top of their creation of a nation in which we live, the one human society on Earth that has come the closest to truly embracing what Natural Law affirms.
And I finally thank him for allowing me to know it. It was by pure chance I could. I' am humbled by it.
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 07:32:56 AM
Talk about long winded, a simple "I have Libertarian leanings" would have sufficed.
Could have fooled me, I was told
several times that I was not a Libertarian, but a liberal here.
Felt a gesture was necessary, apologize if wrong.
QuoteYour need to myopically focus on a single issue screams volumes about your person more than anything.
That, or perhaps I
want to get into the nitty-gritty of it? Because I
like talking about economics? Strange hobby, I know, but some of us poor spirits simply find the dismal science
fascinating.
Probably why Thomas Sowell occupies half the space in my kindle library. Another 1/3 for Hayek. None for Thomas Malthus. Just 1 for Keynes.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 08:03:49 AM
Felt a gesture was necessary, apologize if wrong.
Huh?
QuoteThat, or perhaps I want to get into the nitty-gritty of it? Because I like talking about economics? Strange hobby, I know, but some of us poor spirits simply find the dismal science fascinating.
Probably why Thomas Sowell occupies half the space in my kindle library. Another 1/3 for Hayek. None for Thomas Malthus. Just 1 for Keynes.
There is only one link between illegal immigration and economics. They are a net loss to the economy overall.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 07:09:51 AM
I'm long winded, I'll give you that, and I don't always know when to hold back.
But that's all it is. I'm not showing off, I'm not being deceitful, and I'm not trying to lose you.
I sometimes go at my own pace, and expect people to pretty much read my mind. That's a flaw of mine, I'll agree.
But something else:
I did not make this personal, nor do I wish to.
From start, even before I took off here, you all decided to call me "liberal" or something worse, from me simply demonstrating dissent on the topic.
Now though, I have shown that yes, Free Market Economists do in fact affirm what I say. It's true, dissent on the Right exists for this topic.
This does not mean you now have to agree with me, but I would appreciate the toning down of the epithets, if only just slightly. In exchange, I'll try to better cater to your requests.
And sometimes I am too nasty, sure.
But when you wander onto a website that is an established community, and immediately act like a pompous know-it-all, simply overwhelming everybody with your "voluminous knowledge", this will happen.
You should learn this ASAP, and stop posting massive, presumptuous, overbearing treatises. Come back to reality, and at least try to fit into the established ethos.
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 09:15:28 AM
Huh?There is only one link between illegal immigration and economics. They are a net loss to the economy overall.
,
Seven pages and still going strong. Still, some posting here do not get it. No matter how many times Bozo changes the wording or their status, they are still here ILLEGALLY and need to be promptly sent home to start over with the process we have had for countless others of different nationalities. Were it not because of an issue of voting to keep Dems in office, we wouldn't be in this mess today. A plan may have been in effect for years but implementing it came at the most strategic point the Dems had to date-2016 elections. If this works for them their glory will be short lived as they will promptly start chitting on the Latinos the same way they do everyone else that ain't in their realm.
If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?
Quote from: keyboarder on August 21, 2014, 09:35:32 AM
,
Seven pages and still going strong. Still, some posting here do not get it. No matter how many times Bozo changes the wording or their status, they are still here ILLEGALLY and need to be promptly sent home to start over with the process we have had for countless others of different nationalities. Were it not because of an issue of voting to keep Dems in office, we wouldn't be in this mess today. A plan may have been in effect for years but implementing it came at the most strategic point the Dems had to date-2016 elections. If this works for them their glory will be short lived as they will promptly start chitting on the Latinos the same way they do everyone else that ain't in their realm.
If he were to follow the law, tens of thousands would be sent back.
We have allowed quotas from different parts of the world, and South America surpassed that long ago.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 21, 2014, 09:38:40 AM
If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?
IF there is no such thing as illegal immigrants. WHY does Mexico annually deports more illegal immigrants than the United States?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 21, 2014, 09:38:40 AM
If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?
Anyone who comes on here and tries to "prove" that illegal immigration on the whole is somehow a profit center for America, is not attempting to have a serious discussion or debate.
Throw up a mosaic of esoteric yet sophomoric minutiae to smokescreen it all.............this BRD (or BRD-like) agent is becoming clearer by the minute.
This one has really got the "aw shucks how can I fit in better and make you happy" thing down pretty well, but we've seen that before.
In fact, he really is starting to look like a couple of earlier abortions here.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 21, 2014, 09:38:40 AM
If there is mo such thing as illegal immigration why do we have border patrol and immigration courts?
;
Apparently to decide how much welfare they'll get, and the border patrol is nothing less than that of a chauffeur nservice to get them to safe Govt housing.
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 10:12:06 AM
;
Apparently to decide how much welfare they'll get, and the border patrol is nothing less than that of a chauffeur nservice to get them to safe Govt housing.
It's the Obama dream, the vehicle for reparations and redistribution.
All of his decisions, machinations, and crimes boil down to this.
Making 2 daddies, one mama, 4 grandparents, and all his adult friends proud, one debacle at a time.
Look at the Big Picture.
The majority of our modern military comes from 'legal' immigrants. While the old 'human wave' approach to warfare is above and beyond outdated, the truth is that we need to find a way to flush our ranks with enlisted men while keeping the non-officer wages relatively low. If our legal methods for immigration were reformed, to say, perhaps even require military service starting at the age of 18 (or 16, if we lowered the military age requirement), we could flush our ranks considerably. Obviously professional immigrants such as doctors, lawyers, and businessmen would be the exception to this rule, but think of how many this rule would apply for. You could limit it to only male immigrants if you want, the female immigrants could become nursing assistants if they weren't full time mothers or in some other strictly female job.
The point is, we can find a use for these immigrants, especially with war looming in the middle east. Let us say, for example's sake, that we wanted to occupy Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Jordan, to establish permanent state-colonies in the middle east. Make them US territory and fill them with immigrant soldiers led by experienced American officers. They would be Latino's fighting against Arabs and Persians. It is the perfect situation. So whine about immigration all you like, but we have the perfect opportunity to sick the most violent men of our continent against the most violent men of theirs.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 21, 2014, 12:21:17 PM
Look at the Big Picture.
The majority of our modern military comes from 'legal' immigrants. While the old 'human wave' approach to warfare is above and beyond outdated, the truth is that we need to find a way to flush our ranks with enlisted men while keeping the non-officer wages relatively low. If our legal methods for immigration were reformed, to say, perhaps even require military service starting at the age of 18 (or 16, if we lowered the military age requirement), we could flush our ranks considerably. Obviously professional immigrants such as doctors, lawyers, and businessmen would be the exception to this rule, but think of how many this rule would apply for. You could limit it to only male immigrants if you want, the female immigrants could become nursing assistants if they weren't full time mothers or in some other strictly female job.
The point is, we can find a use for these immigrants, especially with war looming in the middle east. Let us say, for example's sake, that we wanted to occupy Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Jordan, to establish permanent state-colonies in the middle east. Make them US territory and fill them with immigrant soldiers led by experienced American officers. They would be Latino's fighting against Arabs and Persians. It is the perfect situation. So whine about immigration all you like, but we have the perfect opportunity to sick the most violent men of our continent against the most violent men of theirs.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now that's thinking outside the box.
Though It won't work, but it has some merit.
Alright, I'll continue, but first:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FEconomics%2FPew_zpsf4445938.png&hash=dfe0996a160dfea6d24d85c4441ab2cadab6ca60)
Just so you know now where I'm getting that from. (92%, I was 1% off.)
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 04:56:42 AM
Did you miss my entire answer?
Your answer demonstrated disregard for Natural Law.
Natural Law's affirmation doesn't have to be complete, but if its not part of the framework, then the law is most likely illegitimate.
Second, consider that the law does not even do what it claims, like so much else in the Government.
1/3 of legal immigrants, are becoming that 1/2 of illegal immigrants. This means, categorically, that the system is failing. If it was working, it certainly shouldn't be that high. It certainly
wasn't that high in the time of Ellis Island.
QuoteJust because you say it isn't make it so. This country has always taken in immigrants, but had you read the link I posted, you'd have noted, there is a limit to just how many are allowed to enter and from where,
Your own links speak to how these limits were dead on arrival. They
said they were going to limit Eastern European immigration, but then they turned right around and made huge exceptions for "Communist refugees", even going so far as to raising the quotas themselves
twice in order to take them all in.
Are you saying that this was a mistake? Taking in all of these poor, uneducated, likely ideologically compromised slavs?
I think you'd have to, as I don't see how full-on Communist nations would be producing better working stock than the soft-socialist kind in Mexico, or the Latin countries.
QuoteObviously you've never opened a business o you wouldn't have posted such a stupid response.
Most businesses fail, it's not stupid, it's a
truism, and we're blackmailing people in using that as a condition to immigrate.
QuoteWhy? Why does it bother your bleeding heart, that someone you'll never meet, don't know even exists can't come here and live?
For the same reason I suspect you have a problem with the crimes of people who have never personally trespassed against you, altruism.
An attack on liberty
anywhere, is an attack on liberty
everywhere. Respect for Natural Law itself is at stake, and it's because the immigrant face to the issue makes it
all too easy to disregard.
QuoteYes, it's called sealing the border best we can, reinstating quotas and selecting the best people to enter this country.
No, that's cynical, and violates Natural Law. Quotas judge people on a collective basis, when we're supposed to be considering the Individual.
The most you can legitimately do is control for sickness and ill intent. Virtually anything else is right out.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 06:39:27 AM
Alright then, prove it. Show me an estimate I can look at.
Did you not read the 30 page report about the burden on Texas? It is 30 pages of data. You might find it informative.
Quote
Further, distinguish economically how these immigrant categories differ.
The illegals are the ones who come here illegally. The legal ones are the ones who came here legally. The illegal ones are usually the ones who are a burden on health care system, insurance companies since they don't purchase insurance, etc., and they are unskilled. The legal ones tend to have a skill, and aren't as much of a burden as illegals.
Quote
Welfare? No, legals take more, because they qualify for more.
That's an American problem. The illegals are gravy on top of the welfare system. The burden of illegals on welfare is not excused because more legals are on it. The burden from illegals needs to be eliminated, and we need to work on the welfare problem of American citizens.
Quote
Labor participation? No, Legal immigrants work less than illegals, likely because they qualify for more welfare.
That is an American problem.
Quote
Skills? In an age where nigh-half of illegals were once H1-B visa holders, that is no longer clear.
Indeed, this last point is why making the distinction is difficult.
Do you wish to distinguish between illegal Immigrants who cross the border, and those we let in, only to let their visas lapse? As that's the only way we're going to get anywhere.
Yes. Illegals are the ones who come here illegally. Legals are the ones who come here legally. The legals who had a lapse visas are ones who came here legally and had skill, and have to go back or get their visa renewed. I've had to deal with this a lot in the past, so I understand the difference very much, and for low skilled in the industrial sector.
What do you do for a living, may I ask?
Quote
The specific settings to policies are controlled by the politik, but their full out-and-out effects are controlled by Supply & Demand.
Supply and demand is a natural concept, encumbered by the Marxists and other big government scum of society.
Quote
Take for instance the Laffer Curve. It holds that the tax rate does not fully control Tax Revenue. If you set the Tax rate at 60%, that does not mean you will get a 60% share of private incomes. More likely, you will get less in return then if you had set the Tax rate at a lower value.
Additionally, you'll get more than if you had set it at a rate close to 0%, or at a rate higher than 60%.
Most of us normal people who understand the free market, and have understood it since we can remember, understand this concept and don't need a Laffer Curve to tell us common sense. Maybe you do.
Quote
As to Minimum wage, it is undermined by inflation, and by the adjustment of prices. Eventually, if left unadjusted, it becomes close to meaningless, as our current minimum wage sits.
Wrong. The free market sets the wage. The minimum wage is a gift to the unions and a tool of control for the Marxists.
Quote
It also never achieves is true goal, for as long as it takes effect, and as Thomas Sowell likes to say: "The True Minimum Wage is Zero."
If you're willing to say this, then I think you'll agree that there exists the political capital to draw a wall around our Welfare state. We simply need to take advantage of it, and sell it in our policies.
"Our policies"? Don't lump me in with you, please.
Quote
I had a Mexican-American coworker once, and we went back and forth several times on immigration, because he *ironically* was for, "sending all the Mexicans back."
He told me stories of his immigrant neighbor and how they were violating building codes in renovating their property, a story of a mother in grocery store buying a stack of pizzas with Food Stamps, and he even brought me the pay stub of one of his immigrant coworkers (mum's the word on how he got that), to ask if I thought he was paying his "fair share" in his taxes.
Now, despite all of this, he still voted for Obama in 2012. I actually helped him do it, by covering for him at work while he went and voted.
But last I talked with him, he was pissed at Obama, for the scandals that were erupting with the IRS, Obamacare's complete failure to be anything it was talked up to be, and yes, his handelling of Immigration.
So I asked him once "If Ted Cruz (who he said he liked somewhat) proposed a measure where we cut off the immigrants from welfare, would you be alright with reforming our Immigration laws, so that they let more people in legally?"
He said alright, so long as we didn't enact amnesty.
And then I asked this "With that platform, would you elect Ted Cruz President?". He said he wasn't sure, I then asked if it was against Hilary, and he said "yes".
Now, this is just one person of course, and I shouldn't draw too much upon it, but I believe he is a microcosm to show, that immigration reform as we want it to be would be possible if we attacked the welfare instead of pussyfooting around it.
We're not pussyfooting around it. RINOs and liberals do.
Quote
People understand that we're low on money, they understand a lot of the illegal immigrants don't pay income taxes.
How hard can it be then, to say "let's cut them off"?
Yes we do, we buy products from the 3rd world all the time, we buy raw resources, we buy intermediate goods to put into our final goods, which we then largely sell back to them (cars for one). We spin capital in and out of their economies when we think they're doing good, and remove it when we think they're doing bad.
We have plenty of labor in our country. We don't need to import crime and disease.
Quote
Again, both capital and Products go across our borders all the time, and Capital is half the equation to Production.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Quote
For the economy to be in equilibrium then, labor too, the other half of the equation, must be mobile.
The free market will take care of that. You don't have to worry.
Quote
Forcing disequilibrium, makes us poorer and uncompetitive.
We have labor shortages all over.
You can thank the government.
Quote
Silicon valley is half Foreign Born, because we can't produce the technical-inclined people we need fast enough to support our own system. Without them, our system would collapse.
Wrong. Yes we can.
Quote
Then why is CATO, a libertarian-think tank on the Free market (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/realities-behind-immigration-debate), pushing for what I have said?
Indeed, going down the line of institutes & Foundations, Adam Smith (http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tag/immigration/), Fraser (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=21641), Independent (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4679), Mises (http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame) Manhattan (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_newrep-we_cant_stop.htm), LearnLiberty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM), why do they all sound like me?
Or rather, why did they teach me to sound like this?
Why did Milton Friedman trash Legal immigration in favor of Illegals?
Why is it like this? Where are the Libertarian Organizations claiming the opposite?
They don't think like you, nor do you know what you're talking about. Friedman, for example, was making the case about how stupid it is that being legal would disqualify you for benefits (at that time), while coming over illegally would give you benefits, and how paradoxical that perspective is. He thinks nothing like you about illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration hurts the economy. To put it another way, having strict border security and tracking and registering immigrants doesn't hurt our economy. The free market works fine within our country and borders. The demand for labor will find the workers.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 06:50:49 AM
I' am Free Marketeer, not a liberal.
I believe in Natural Law: Life, Liberty, Property, as it was defined by John Locke. I believe in American Exceptionalism strictly as Alex de Tocqueville defined it.
Then why do we need illegals?
Quote
This means I'm against Abortion, for it violates life, I'm against the Affordable Care Act, for it violates Liberty, and I'm Against Department of the Interior's management of Alaskan Oil Reserves, for it violates property.
I have a ton of questions and a lot I want to learn from your perspective on the whole oil company/Alaska thing, but seeing how you don't understand the basics of the free market, and your perspective that illegals help the economy, I couldn't trust or rely on your perspective. It really is a shame, because you would have been a treat for me.
Quote
The Second part means that America is unique for how it (once) used Private Association to address societal ills, instead of Public organization, as nearly all other nations have done.
I believe in the presence of Emergent order, which gave form to Natural Law, Economics, Common Law, and Language.
This means I'am suspicious if not in outright contempt of any laws that seek to place themselves above Common Law.
Emergent order is affirmed by it, something in the very fabric reality. It is an immutable truth you can choose to respect, but never ignore, for its effects will be felt regardless.
Last, but not least, I believe in the Lord my God, my savior and sovereign, who constructed Natural Law as it Exists, which is the key itself to Humans understanding Divine law. The Lord was gracious enough to appoint St. Thomas Aquinas, the namesake of my First High School, to write extensively on the existence of Natural Law and its effects.
I thank him equally for creating Father Robert Sirroco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu7dGHLodxs), who helped to further bridge my Catholic beliefs to my Economic imperatives, along with everyone who has joined with him at the Acton institute.
And I thank him for creating the Founders, whose Socratic example of being antagonistic to political power, and harboring great love of Liberty, served as a personal inspiration to me, on top of their creation of a nation in which we live, the one human society on Earth that has come the closest to truly embracing what Natural Law affirms.
And I finally thank him for allowing me to know it. It was by pure chance I could. I' am humbled by it.
We'll see. So far, believing that illegals help the economy puts you in with the man made global warming believers and other flat-Earthers. I hope you crawl out of this, because I think you could be a benefit if you open your eyes and start thinking.
Quote from: taxed on August 22, 2014, 04:42:17 AM
Did you not read the 30 page report about the burden on Texas?
Fiscal effects as far as I could tell, not quantifying "morale loss" as you put it.
QuoteThat's an American problem.
Welfare is the problem period. It's sophistic to say "No, you can't come here because I'll give you money".
That's something that's our fault, so what are we blaming
them for? It's nonsense.
QuoteThe illegals are gravy on top of the welfare system. The burden of illegals on welfare is not excused because more legals are on it.
True, it's not an excuse, but it just so happens that they contribute more than they take.
CATO says this (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-11.pdf):
"
...illegal immigration may be even more of a net plus to
the Social Security system than legal immigration. Because of their
unauthorized status, illegal immigrants are ineligible to receive
benefits, no matter how many years they work inside the United
States. And despite the popular perception that they do not pay
taxes, the Social Security Administration itself estimates that about
three-quarters of unauthorized immigrants in the work force actu-
ally pay into the system albeit through false accounts (Porter 2005)"
QuoteWhat do you do for a living, may I ask?
I work in the General Aviation industry.
QuoteWrong. The free market sets the wage.
Didn't say anything to the contrary.
QuoteWe're not pussyfooting around it. RINOs and liberals do.
Haven't seen one policy suggested to both fix immigration, and reduce welfare to immigrants. Perfect solution in my mind, and it appeals even to an Obama voter.
QuoteWe have plenty of labor in our country.
Businesses and Farmers in Arizona, Alabama, and Washington all disagreed when each of their states started cracking down on Illegals.
Crops were left to rot because they didn't have enough gatherers, blue collar jobs that had been empty for decades before the immigrants showed up, were once again empty.
The laws cost the state economies billions, and its why similiar laws weren't enacted in Kansas and Kentucky (http://business.time.com/2012/06/14/the-fiscal-fallout-of-state-immigration-laws/), among others.
QuoteWe don't need to import crime and disease.
An age-old objection to immigration.
People suggested to block the Irish because they were thought to have cholera. European Jews were seen as carriers for tuberculosis. Asians were alleged to have hookworm.
Crime? Had it in plenty, the first illegal immigrants we had were the Chinese, as we sought to block their entry for having too many "prostitutes, Opiates and gangs".
Turns out, despite all that, the Chinese are some of the most productive people on the planet. Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, can't all be wrong, nor American-Chinese regularly outperforming white-Americans.
We could have done with a few more million of them. And considering Asians are the growing face of both legal and illegal immigration, we may just get our chance.
QuoteThe free market will take care of that. You don't have to worry.
The Free market includes the rest of the world.
You don't just draw an economy upon national boundaries, that's arbitrary as it forgets that
trade occurs.
It doesn't help us to slap high tariffs on foreign made goods, it doesn't help us to forcibly stop our companies from going overseas, it doesn't help us to stop foreign companies from setting up shop here, it doesn't help us to stop Americans from going to work overseas, and it doesn't help us to stop foreign labor from working here.
In short, Economic
Protectionism of any sort, is counterproductive.
More people = more economy. More Goods & services. More laborers, more consumers, more wealth.
QuoteThey don't think like you,
You didn't read them then.
CATO:
"Most of this debate involves wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.
The first is
allowing more legal immigration. This point is obvious but worth emphasizing. The United States has an illegal immigration problem
because it restricts legal immigration. So long as large wage differences persist between the U.S. and other countries, especially Latin America, the desire to immigrate will persist and occur illegally if it is not permitted legally.
...
The second way to reduce illegal immigration is to
expand free trade. If goods can move freely
across countries, the demand for low-skill labor will shift from the United States to poorer countries, raising wages there relative to here and reducing the incentive to immigrate.
...
The policies that will do little to shrink illegal immigration are
increased border enforcement, stiffer punishments for employers who hire illegals, or aggressive arrest policies such as those adopted in Arizona. These measures are
ineffective because they do not change the fact that wages in the U.S. are attractive compared to wages in poor countries. "
Do I need to quote the others, or will this suffice?
QuoteFriedman, for example, was making the case about how stupid it is that being legal would disqualify you for benefits (at that time), while coming over illegally would give you benefits,
I have the video of what he says right here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio#t=2m58s). What speech are you talking about? You may be right here, he did live long after this.
Quote from: taxed on August 22, 2014, 04:47:26 AM
Then why do we need illegals?
It's as Milton Friedman put it, it helps people from both sides of the border.
Being illegal, doesn't bar you from being productive, and why would it?
Someone is still hiring you, you're still doing a job, you're filling a vacancy, that's economic wealth on the table that otherwise wouldn't exist.
The "
Need" to this though, is based on our own current labor shortages.
This is because of how American labor skills themselves are situated, currently, it looks like this:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FEconomics%2Fhigh-low-skilled-labor-300x210_zps0216032a.jpg&hash=8f01931ac32040cc43966ce0839aa2b0ba0213e6)
American skills are primarily in the middle, while immigrant skills tend to be either very high, or very low.
To have more of the jobs in the middle for Americans to do, you need to have plenty of people at the bottom or the top. Those immigrants working those jobs help to make more of the American jobs possible.
Right now, our
Legal immigration
is not meeting our labor demands, we bring in too few. Companies hire
illicit labor, because they need to fill the gap. Otherwise they're forced to leave work undone, and Americans go unemployed or do work at jobs of lesser station than what their skills could allow them to.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 06:08:28 AM
It's as Milton Friedman put it, it helps people from both sides of the border.
Being illegal, doesn't bar you from being productive, and why would it?
Someone is still hiring you, you're still doing a job, you're filling a vacancy, that's economic wealth on the table that otherwise wouldn't exist.
The "Need" to this though, is based on our own current labor shortages.
This is because of how American labor skills themselves are situated, currently, it looks like this:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FEconomics%2Fhigh-low-skilled-labor-300x210_zps0216032a.jpg&hash=8f01931ac32040cc43966ce0839aa2b0ba0213e6)
American skills are primarily in the middle, while immigrant skills tend to be either very high, or very low.
To have more of the jobs in the middle for Americans to do, you need to have plenty of people at the bottom or the top. Those immigrants working those jobs help to make more of the American jobs possible.
Right now, our Legal immigration is not meeting our labor demands, we bring in too few. Companies hire illicit labor, because they need to fill the gap. Otherwise they're forced to leave work undone, and Americans go unemployed or do work at jobs of lesser station than what their skills could allow them to.
You will have to refresh us on the high skills of the illegals. How many doctors, scientists, dentists, lawyers, and engineers are pouring over the southern border ? I think everybody but you sees 99.95 % fruit pickers and landscaping laborers. Maybe a couple guys who know how to frame or wire or plumb something.
I realize that you'll come back with some obtuse claim that 1 zillion geniuses are skulking around from India, Hong Kong, etc.....by virtue of expired visas or some such shit.
But ahhh, no. If legal immigration and American labor can be shown to be failing at filling the jobs.....that's what we change.
We don't just magically suspend laws and repackage illegal as legal......as moron liberals are wont to do.
I realize that responding to you is a fool's errand, waste of time, and dumb on my part. It only gives you a new little jolt in the ass to rush back on here and post unendingly, obtusely, childishly yet again. But I did it, dummy that I am.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 06:29:51 AM
You will have to refresh us on the high skills of the illegals.
40% of Illegals once had a skills visa. Big deal about that two pages back, you didn't see it?
QuoteI realize that you'll come back with some obtuse claim that 1 zillion geniuses are skulking
Why is Breitbart saying it then? You say it's obtuse, but they seem to believe it.
QuoteBut ahhh, no. If legal immigration and American labor can be shown to be failing at filling the jobs.....that's what we change.
... How?
QuoteWe don't just magically suspend laws and repackage illegal as legal...
I'm not suggesting Amnesty, already said that.
QuoteI realize that responding to you is a fool's errand, waste of time, and dumb on my part. It only gives you a new little jolt in the ass to rush back on here and post unendingly, obtusely, childishly yet again. But I did it, dummy that I am.
Thank you for your time.
Most adults don't do the full-on parsing thing, a snippy incomplete little "answer" for every 5 words of somebody's post.
I note that this is all you do.
It's the maximum aggravation, best way to stretch out the obtuse.
We've seen it 100 times from 100 different 20-ish putzes.
Anybody can refer to any one of a million little quips or quotes or stats to "prove" their broad-brush, monolithic, vague claims. It's a childish little pursuit that any fool can cull from unending hours on Wiki and Bing and Google.
Here you have 100% of respondents who agree that you're an annoying dolt. Does this not factor into your behaviors at all, whatsoever ?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 09:52:41 PM
Alright, I'll continue, but first:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FEconomics%2FPew_zpsf4445938.png&hash=dfe0996a160dfea6d24d85c4441ab2cadab6ca60)
Just so you know now where I'm getting that from. (92%, I was 1% off.)
Your answer demonstrated disregard for Natural Law.
Natural Law's affirmation doesn't have to be complete, but if its not part of the framework, then the law is most likely illegitimate.
Holy Shit! Andy was right, you are an ignorant arrogant little piss ant.
Now you're claiming our Republic and it's claim to sovereignty is illegitimate, that natural law precedes US law, and therefore illicit?
Serious question. Have you ever ever noticed that wherever you go, whatever you say, leads to your abandonment?
I ask, only because, based on the shit you write, it's glaringly apparent your station in life is one of ostracization and isolation.
People simply don't want to be around you, because you live in an alternative universe.
You may want to reflect on that. Because like it or not, your ideas are not inline with reality.
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 07:07:02 AM
Holy Shit! Andy was right, you are an ignorant arrogant little piss ant.
Now you're claiming our Republic and it's claim to sovereignty is illegitimate, that natural law precedes US law, and therefore illicit?
Serious question. Have you ever ever noticed that wherever you go, whatever you say, leads to your abandonment?
I ask, only because, based on the shit you write, it's glaringly apparent your station in life is one of ostracization and isolation.
People simply don't want to be around you, because you live in an alternative universe.
You may want to reflect on that. Because like it or not, your ideas are not inline with reality.
I actually feel bad for picking on a kid sometimes.
But maybe his experience here can help him in some tiny way, to not be a boorish, bleating, fringe idiot for his whole life.
Maybe someday when he's not an outcast and has STFU at least a little, and has a little dignity and a couple of real friends / colleagues.......he'll look back and say "those guys helped me out a little".
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 07:12:44 AM
I actually feel bad for picking on a kid sometimes.
But maybe his experience here can help him in some tiny way, to not be a boorish, bleating, fringe idiot for his whole life.
Maybe someday when he's not an outcast and has STFU at least a little, and has a little dignity and a couple of real friends / colleagues.......he'll look back and say "those guys helped me out a little".
You do have your work cut out for you if he is around that long. :popcorn:
And I still think this "kid" sounds a lot like that guy who melted down here and crashed & burned.
Claimed he was the world's greatest conservative, knew everything about everything going back to the Magna Carta and de Toqueville and the Founders. Everybody at CPF was a fake conservative, and he was rewriting all of the tenets of conservatism & constitutionalism....on his website / blog.
Really angry, bitter, all-consumed guy. He was supposedly an older fella who had done everything that this world has to offer. WTH was his name again ?
This just feels like the same guy, re-packaged as "young genius guy fresh from MIT-Cornell-Stanford".
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 06:57:42 AM
Most adults don't do the full-on parsing thing,
Nor do I, we call it omnislashing in my other forum, and I resorted to it as it seemed what solar wanted me to do when talking to him. Was that intentional?
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 07:12:44 AM
I actually feel bad for picking on a kid sometimes.
But maybe his experience here can help him in some tiny way, to not be a boorish, bleating, fringe idiot for his whole life.
Maybe someday when he's not an outcast and has STFU at least a little, and has a little dignity and a couple of real friends / colleagues.......he'll look back and say "those guys helped me out a little".
Literally cut from the mold of LIBertarian Anarchist, myopic by course, with an amazing ability to ignore human nature, while claiming his way is the only way, and law be damned!
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 07:19:11 AM
Nor do I, we call it omnislashing in my other forum, and I resorted to it as it seemed what solar wanted me to do when talking to him. Was that intentional?
lol, you certainly are stretching things out and "making us answer you", like the kiddies seem to love doing.
Very deft.
"I don't do that. You made me do it". Cute.
I will give you one thing, you have a clever template, and have avoided the melt down. You can't really make anything of this in real life, but it's something that you can be "proud of" for a few minutes anyway,
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 07:18:50 AM
And I still think this "kid" sounds a lot like that guy who melted down here and crashed & burned.
Claimed he was the world's greatest conservative, knew everything about everything going back to the Magna Carta and de Toqueville and the Founders. Everybody at CPF was a fake conservative, and he was rewriting all of the tenets of conservatism & constitutionalism....on his website / blog.
Really angry, bitter, all-consumed guy. He was supposedly an older fella who had done everything that this world has to offer. WTH was his name again ?
This just feels like the same guy, re-packaged as "young genius guy fresh from MIT-Cornell-Stanford".
Trip. And use the quote function ya freakin rock head!
His moniker was Trip, and quite fitting, because the guy really was a Trip.
Though not the same guy here, Trip was at least smart, nuts, but smart, but like this one, suffered the same mental malady of ignoring pragmatism as well as human nature.
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 07:21:28 AM
Literally cut from the mold of LIBertarian Anarchist, myopic by course, with an amazing ability to ignore human nature, while claiming his way is the only way, and law be damned!
lol, I can always picture him / them so clearly in my mind.
Little skinny jeans (black of course), Vans sneakers (checkerboard of course), T-Shirt with an almost-tied tie (no shit, I actually see this on my son's campus), vaguely ivy-league coat, some kind of silly retro hat (Fred McMurray-like, haha), and the obligatory horn-rimmed glasses. All brought together with a goofy package of emo/nihilist hair & chin stubble.
Thank God my son laughs at them, and isn't like them.
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 07:33:11 AM
Trip. And use the quote function ya freakin rock head!
His moniker was Trip, and quite fitting, because the guy really was a Trip.
Though not the same guy here, Trip was at least smart, nuts, but smart, but like this one, suffered the same mental malady of ignoring pragmatism as well as human nature.
Sorry, I was making a point so brilliant that it could not be reliant on any words ever spoken previously. It was stand-alone social commentary, that needed to exist in a vacuum for purity. You know, the "clean room" of posting.............
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 07:07:02 AM
Holy Shit! Andy was right, you are an ignorant arrogant little piss ant.
Now you're claiming our Republic and it's claim to sovereignty is illegitimate,
Actually, to memory that hasn't been referenced before, but now that it has, let's analyze that.
What is American sovereignty? As I understand it, it is the aggregate of the individual sovereignty of all living here.
We can say American sovereignty has been violated, when and only when an individual American has been harmed or will likely be harmed by another's actions.
This is why I say you must look for illness or Ill intent. Either would harm an individual American, so can trespass on private property. It's individual culpability we have to look for.
QuoteYou may want to reflect on that. Because like it or not, your ideas are not inline with reality.
Once again, Judge Napolitano:
"The right to travel is
an individual personal human right, long recognized under
the natural law as
immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here. All of these
abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.
The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.
...the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. In addition to Aquinas and Jefferson, it has been embraced by St. Augustine, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II and Justice Clarence Thomas. Our fundamental human rights
are not conditioned or even conditionable on the laws or traditions of the place where our mothers were physically located when we were born. They are not attenuated because our mothers were not in the United States at the moment of our births. Stated differently,
we all possess natural rights, no more and no less than any others. All humans have the full panoply of freedom of choice in areas of personal behavior protected from governmental interference by the natural law, no matter where they were born."
Well, that's two I guess.
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Now that is how evidence is presented. While I do not agree with you it is at least evidence that you have a brain, which is found wanting among the other member's I've noticed so far.
Edit: Alaska Sim, in today's modern world of suitcase nukes, chemical agents, biological agents, and a number of other potential atrocities that are more easily committed now than ever, I must reject the hypothesis that is "freedom to travel." Equally, we used to have "freedom of use of information" but ever since the 70s, corporations have moved to state that any idea of theirs can belong to them indefinitely with no end date, being immortal in all things, just like people are ... oh wait, people die all the time, I guess. But then corporations are people, so obviously at least there are SOME people that can live forever. Mommy, Daddy, I wanna become a Corporation when I grow up so I can live forever and never get into any real trouble. But that is neither here nor there. The point is, if people are going to want to come into this country, we have a supply of "Citizenship" that they have a strong demand for ... therefore in exchange I see it only fitting for them to promise military service. Perhaps an illegal immigrant that signs up for a 2 year contract gets a work visa? And maybe after serving in the military for 5 years it becomes a permanent work visa for not just him but any spouse too? I like the sound of that, maybe we can see what avenues to legalization we can create that makes the most of these illegals, into something useful to our good ole US of A.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 22, 2014, 07:45:04 AM
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Now that is how evidence is presented. While I do not agree with you it is at least evidence that you have a brain, which is found wanting among the other member's I've noticed so far.
Please use the quote function, as it helps our guest follow the flow.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 07:18:50 AM
This just feels like the same guy, re-packaged as "young genius guy fresh from MIT-Cornell-Stanford".
Nah, I went to a state school. 3rd in the nation for aviation degrees, pretty top notch simulator program. ( I had an Australian instructor suspected of being a Belgian terrorist. I had to provide evidence of my American citizenship to
him. )
Otherwise, nothing special. Hated graduation, they were extolling one liberal cause after the next the school was into. The Folks were annoyed too.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 22, 2014, 07:45:04 AM
Perhaps an illegal immigrant that signs up for a 2 year contract gets a work visa? And maybe after serving in the military for 5 years it becomes a permanent work visa for not just him but any spouse too?
That may work, Singapore requires two years service for citizens and 2nd generation permanent residents. I'm not sure though if we could afford to expand the military by that much, I'd need to see some sort of estimate.
Quote from: walkstall on August 22, 2014, 07:50:08 AM
Please use the quote function, as it helps our guest follow the flow.
lol, I was taken aback at the accolades from the ancient Greeks !
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 08:03:59 AM
Nah, I went to a state school. 3rd in the nation for aviation degrees, pretty top notch simulator program. ( I had an Australian instructor suspected of being a Belgian terrorist. I had to provide evidence of my American citizenship to him. )
Otherwise, nothing special. Hated graduation, they were extolling one liberal cause after the next the school was into. The Folks were annoyed too.
It's funny, I can't figure out if you're not as bad as my suspicions......or if you're just pretty good at playing possum, and stretching out the nonsense for max effect......by not arguing too much.
Embry Riddle ?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 07:41:18 AM
Actually, to memory that hasn't been referenced before, but now that it has, let's analyze that.
What is American sovereignty? As I understand it, it is the aggregate of the individual sovereignty of all living here.
We can say American sovereignty has been violated, when and only when an individual American has been harmed or will likely be harmed by another's actions.
This is why I say you must look for illness or Ill intent. Either would harm an individual American, so can trespass on private property. It's individual culpability we have to look for.
Once again, Judge Napolitano:
"The right to travel is an individual personal human right, long recognized under the natural law as immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here. All of these abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.
The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.
...the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. In addition to Aquinas and Jefferson, it has been embraced by St. Augustine, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II and Justice Clarence Thomas. Our fundamental human rights are not conditioned or even conditionable on the laws or traditions of the place where our mothers were physically located when we were born. They are not attenuated because our mothers were not in the United States at the moment of our births. Stated differently, we all possess natural rights, no more and no less than any others. All humans have the full panoply of freedom of choice in areas of personal behavior protected from governmental interference by the natural law, no matter where they were born."
Well, that's two I guess.
The harm is easy - freeloading, stealing, and wasting the money that's been forcibly taken from me, thereby making it unavailable to the things that I should receive in exchange for my funding of the govt.
And natural rights from God are not without qualifications or controls. Nothing in life, from God or man, is. Yes, you may wander the earth as you like, but you can't just saunter into any place without acknowledging the inhabitants or owners, or their attempts to keep things safe, secure, fair, and orderly. Not my house, not a country, not a business, not a municipal venue like a school or hospital.
Natural rights do not confer the right to pursue / create anarchy.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 22, 2014, 07:45:04 AM
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Now that is how evidence is presented. While I do not agree with you it is at least evidence that you have a brain, which is found wanting among the other member's I've noticed so far.
Edit: Alaska Sim, in today's modern world of suitcase nukes, chemical agents, biological agents, and a number of other potential atrocities that are more easily committed now than ever, I must reject the hypothesis that is "freedom to travel." Equally, we used to have "freedom of use of information" but ever since the 70s, corporations have moved to state that any idea of theirs can belong to them indefinitely with no end date, being immortal in all things, just like people are ... oh wait, people die all the time, I guess. But then corporations are people, so obviously at least there are SOME people that can live forever. Mommy, Daddy, I wanna become a Corporation when I grow up so I can live forever and never get into any real trouble. But that is neither here nor there. The point is, if people are going to want to come into this country, we have a supply of "Citizenship" that they have a strong demand for ... therefore in exchange I see it only fitting for them to promise military service. Perhaps an illegal immigrant that signs up for a 2 year contract gets a work visa? And maybe after serving in the military for 5 years it becomes a permanent work visa for not just him but any spouse too? I like the sound of that, maybe we can see what avenues to legalization we can create that makes the most of these illegals, into something useful to our good ole US of A.
Woops...your I hate corporations is showing.
Corporations do indeed get the protections and opportunities of individuals, because they are the absolute property of individual people.
It is that simple. Just as you would like to scoff that a corporation "is a person"......I can scoff at the notion that it becomes just some asset of the socialist state that somehow has no connection to the owner / creator, but instead becomes just a state vehicle to deliver "living wage" and medicine and retirement.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 08:14:48 AM
It's funny, I can't figure out if you're not as bad as my suspicions......or if you're just pretty good at playing possum,
I have the will to fight you to the death over values, things that matter, but about myself? I don't take *me* too seriously.
Something I learned through experience. Opinion of guys on the internet? It doesn't matter, it's the internet. If you don't like me and make a point about that, I can just move on. Moved on from the political forum... Or I may just gotten bored.
Quote
Embry Riddle ?
Oh hecks no, way too rich for my blood, and you'd only really go there if you had your heart set on being a pilot. Which I don't.
I do like flying, but not to the degree that I wanted to suffer through the process of becoming a commercial pilot. It's almost as bad as medical interning, only your sleep deprived while possibly holding at 20,000 feet.
Oddly enough, pilots at my school would switch into my degree track, as it was common for them not to get enough hours to graduate in the piloting track.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 07:41:18 AM
Actually, to memory that hasn't been referenced before, but now that it has, let's analyze that.
What is American sovereignty? As I understand it, it is the aggregate of the individual sovereignty of all living here.
We can say American sovereignty has been violated, when and only when an individual American has been harmed or will likely be harmed by another's actions.
This is why I say you must look for illness or Ill intent. Either would harm an individual American, so can trespass on private property. It's individual culpability we have to look for.
Once again, Judge Napolitano:
"The right to travel is an individual personal human right, long recognized under the natural law as immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here. All of these abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.
The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.
...the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. In addition to Aquinas and Jefferson, it has been embraced by St. Augustine, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II and Justice Clarence Thomas. Our fundamental human rights are not conditioned or even conditionable on the laws or traditions of the place where our mothers were physically located when we were born. They are not attenuated because our mothers were not in the United States at the moment of our births. Stated differently, we all possess natural rights, no more and no less than any others. All humans have the full panoply of freedom of choice in areas of personal behavior protected from governmental interference by the natural law, no matter where they were born."
Well, that's two I guess.
Amazing! So if I move into your home, eat your food, watch your TV, all done with no intent to harm, then using your logic, I'm following my Right of Natural Law?
Because that's exactly how you explain illegal immigration.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 08:24:55 AM
The harm is easy - freeloading, stealing, and wasting the money that's been forcibly taken from me, thereby making it unavailable to the things that I should receive in exchange for my funding of the govt.
True, but that's a problem with the welfare system, not the immigrant.
Seeing as how that system is more frequently abused by poor Americans to start with, it needs fixing anyway.
And as I said before in citing my Mexican-American coworker, I think we would find, if we inquired, that there's a pretty broad consensus to draw a wall around the welfare state.
As to qualifications, those again have to be based on individual culpability, not collective.
If someone is sick with a contagious disease? Yes, block them until such time that they become better.
Has inclinations to being a killer or terrorist? Sure, block 'em.
Just low-skilled and uneducated? No. Let them in, and let the market decide what to do with them.
Their presence alone does not violate the natural rights of any of us, my liberty nor property, nor life are injured by theirs. That only happens if they act against me, just as it would be with any American.
Equally, " secure fair and orderly" was achieved under open borders, and far better in estimations I've been shown of the period. We don't have to go back to that, but we should have an immigration policy that keeps Natural Law in mind, and respects the immigrants as sovereign individuals.
None of us much like our tax code or the IRS because it disrespects us, so why is it okay to pass off an even more onerous bureaucracy on poor people just trying to come and work here? It doesn't make us safer, and it only incentivizes people to break the law.
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 08:33:22 AM
Amazing! So if I move into your home,
Nah, that analogy is pretty wonky.
How exactly, for instance, do you model the businesses who are trying to hire the illegals in that?
That's like saying theres someone else living in your home who runs a business, and who upon meeting the "intruder", hires them on the spot to go mow the lawn. Pretty weird.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
True, but that's a problem with the welfare system, not the immigrant.
Seeing as how that system is more frequently abused by poor Americans to start with, it needs fixing anyway.
And as I said before in citing my Mexican-American coworker, I think we would find, if we inquired, that there's a pretty broad consensus to draw a wall around the welfare state.
As to qualifications, those again have to be based on individual culpability, not collective.
If someone is sick with a contagious disease? Yes, block them until such time that they become better.
Has inclinations to being a killer or terrorist? Sure, block 'em.
Just low-skilled and uneducated? No. Let them in, and let the market decide what to do with them.
Their presence alone does not violate the natural rights of any of us, my liberty nor property, nor life are injured by theirs. That only happens if they act against me, just as it would be with any American.
Equally, " secure fair and orderly" was achieved under open borders, and far better in estimations I've been shown of the period. We don't have to go back to that, but we should have an immigration policy that keeps Natural Law in mind, and respects the immigrants as sovereign individuals.
None of us much like our tax code or the IRS because it disrespects us, so why is it okay to pass off an even more onerous bureaucracy on poor people just trying to come and work here? It doesn't make us safer, and it only incentivizes people to break the law.
Nah, that analogy is pretty wonky.
How exactly, for instance, do you model the businesses who are trying to hire the illegals in that?
That's like saying theres someone else living in your home who runs a business, and who upon meeting the "intruder", hires them on the spot to go mow the lawn. Pretty weird.
The illegal immigrant is creating his own private welfare system when he saunters across the border. Of course he's being supported by an employer, and Obama / Holder creating off-the-cuff reparations for him. Which should both be indicted and prosecuted.
But none of this gives credence to any Natural Law or Rights to do so.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
True, but that's a problem with the welfare system, not the immigrant.
Seeing as how that system is more frequently abused by poor Americans to start with, it needs fixing anyway.
And as I said before in citing my Mexican-American coworker, I think we would find, if we inquired, that there's a pretty broad consensus to draw a wall around the welfare state.
As to qualifications, those again have to be based on individual culpability, not collective.
If someone is sick with a contagious disease? Yes, block them until such time that they become better.
Has inclinations to being a killer or terrorist? Sure, block 'em.
Just low-skilled and uneducated? No. Let them in, and let the market decide what to do with them.
Their presence alone does not violate the natural rights of any of us, my liberty nor property, nor life are injured by theirs. That only happens if they act against me, just as it would be with any American.
Equally, " secure fair and orderly" was achieved under open borders, and far better in estimations I've been shown of the period. We don't have to go back to that, but we should have an immigration policy that keeps Natural Law in mind, and respects the immigrants as sovereign individuals.
None of us much like our tax code or the IRS because it disrespects us, so why is it okay to pass off an even more onerous bureaucracy on poor people just trying to come and work here? It doesn't make us safer, and it only incentivizes people to break the law.
Free mkt does not dictate the law, the mkt works within the boundaries of the law.
QuoteNah, that analogy is pretty wonky.
How exactly, for instance, do you model the businesses who are trying to hire the illegals in that?
That's like saying theres someone else living in your home who runs a business, and who upon meeting the "intruder", hires them on the spot to go mow the lawn. Pretty weird.
No it's not "Wonky"!
Natural law dictates I can take everything you own, simply because I can kick your ass.
Law of the jungle is natural law! And don't bother quoting Locke, he completely ignores the fact that we are a part of the animal kingdom, just luckily at the top of the food chain.
I'm moving this thread to the Nut House, quite befitting I might add.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 09:55:42 AM
The illegal immigrant is creating his own private welfare system when he saunters across the border. Of course he's being supported by an employer,
Unless you were independently wealthy, we are all supported by an employer, that's not a crime.
You can only block illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to.
Otherwise, they have a natural right to immigrate, just as Judge Napolitano says.
And businesses have a natural tight to hire them.
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 10:50:25 AM
Free mkt does not dictate the law, the mkt works within the boundaries of the law.
The law must respect & consider Natural Law, or it us illegitimate.
We ourselves are facing an illegitimate law right now, the affordable care act.
By law, the little sisters of the poor must buy contraception. They are breaking the law by not doing so.
They are in the right, because a higher law guards their right to refuse. Natural Law, which commands respect of liberty.
QuoteNo it's not "Wonky"!
Yes it is, you can't compensate for what I listed any other way. A mall is a more accurate depiction.
QuoteNatural law dictates I can take everything you own, simply because I can kick your ass.
Natural law would say an animal would defend itself if attacked, thus we all have a right to self defense.
Indeed, the founders called defense the first right for just this reason.
Animals also guard territory and their kills, so possessions and property are too natural.
Liberty is what animals have when not under attack or on another's territory, so it too is natural.
The Founders also mention natural law by name in the declaration, and cite the law as cause for why they rejected the arbitrary political law of parliament.
Were the Founders wrong then, since you don't believe in natural law as they did?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 09:41:04 PM
The law must respect & consider Natural Law, or it us illegitimate.
We ourselves are facing an illegitimate law right now, the affordable care act.
By law, the little sisters of the poor must buy contraception. They are breaking the law by not doing so.
They are in the right, because a higher law guards their right to refuse. Natural Law, which commands respect of liberty.
Yes it is, you can't compensate for what I listed any other way. A mall is a more accurate depiction.
Natural law would say an animal would defend itself if attacked, thus we all have a right to self defense.
Indeed, the founders called defense the first right for just this reason.
Animals also guard territory and their kills, so possessions and property are too natural.
Liberty is what animals have when not under attack or on another's territory, so it too is natural.
The Founders also mention natural law by name in the declaration, and cite the law as cause for why they rejected the arbitrary political law of parliament.
Were the Founders wrong then, since you don't believe in natural law as they did?
The Founders were absolutely correct basing our laws on natural Law with limitations.
It's your bastardization of Natural LAW, claiming illegals have every right to break the law, a law our Founders painstakingly implemented to protect the Rights of US citizens, not freakin illegals.
Playing sleight of hand again, I see, but that shit is getting old mighty fast!
Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 10:33:24 PM
The Founders were absolutely correct basing our laws on natural Law with limitations.
Those limitations weren't on immigration, not as we have implemented them. We had
open borders then, and our solution for immigrant skewing of voting was to delay how long they had to live here before becoming citizens, not block them from coming here.
In the Founders' time, there was
no such thing as an Illegal immigrant. That's a legal fabrication from across the last century or so.
Under the law as it was before 1914, every single illegal immigrant, would have been legal.
QuoteIt's your bastardization of Natural LAW, claiming illegals have every right to break the law,
The little Sisters of the Poor have the right to break the law, the ACA, because their right supersedes the law.
Legislative, or Civil Law is not correct simply because it is the law,
you know this, and even if you didn't, Bill Whittle demonstrated in the first few second
of that video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TSiJ2Gp058), why this is the case.
We do have the right to control immigration, but only if its an equal violation of Natural Law that is at stake.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 09:31:18 PM
Unless you were independently wealthy, we are all supported by an employer, that's not a crime.
You can only block illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to.
Otherwise, they have a natural right to immigrate, just as Judge Napolitano says.
And businesses have a natural tight to hire them.
"You can only block
illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to."
Do you realize you just made a fool of yourself with the above post? Damn, don't you understand the definition of ILLEGAL?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 11:44:52 PM
Those limitations weren't on immigration, not as we have implemented them. We had open borders then, and our solution for immigrant skewing of voting was to delay how long they had to live here before becoming citizens, not block them from coming here.
In the Founders' time, there was no such thing as an Illegal immigrant. That's a legal fabrication from across the last century or so.
Under the law as it was before 1914, every single illegal immigrant, would have been legal.
The little Sisters of the Poor have the right to break the law, the ACA, because their right supersedes the law.
Legislative, or Civil Law is not correct simply because it is the law, you know this, and even if you didn't, Bill Whittle demonstrated in the first few second of that video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TSiJ2Gp058), why this is the case.
We do have the right to control immigration, but only if its an equal violation of Natural Law that is at stake.
You are a complete fool!
You can't have it both ways, Natural law had limitations placed on it to protect the Liberties of Americans first.
If one is willing to submit to a test of values, willing to learn the language and a shared commitment to the success of American idealism, then, and only then were they welcomed.
We have these laws in order to protect American culture. A massive influx of a foreign culture is detrimental to that of our own, hence the reason for quota limitations.
Our Founders believed that growing the numbers of like minded individuals that wanted to share our ideals, would strengthen the new Nation, and it "Did".
Under today's culture, the left has destroyed the idea of melting pot where all cultures discard their old political beliefs and accept American ideals, now it's called "Diversity", to which I say Bull Shit, enough is enough!
It's time to close the gate till the soup congeals, otherwise our culture is risk of becoming something detrimental to it's continued success. Though it already has.
What do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.
Tell me how our culture would survive? Using your logic, there should be no limitations, let the cards fall where they may and to Hell with the rights of those wanting to protect our culture over that of the individual.
Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 07:37:06 AM
You can't have it both ways, Natural law had limitations placed on it to protect the Liberties of Americans first.
History says differently.
When it speaks to "the people", the Constitution recognizes three categories; Citizens, Denizens, and Aliens. Denizens were Free Blacks, Native Americans, or anyone else that lived within the country that weren't recognized as citizens. Aliens were foreign nationals, like the Spanish in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Brits in the Ohio Valley or Canada, that wandered into America to do trade.
All of these categories had rights, no one was "more equal", Citizens just had the added privilege of voting.
Once Again, Judge Napolitano:
"Americans are
not possessed of more natural rights
than non-Americans; rather, we enjoy more opportunities to exercise those rights because the government is theoretically restrained by the Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the natural law. That recognition is articulated in the Ninth Amendment, which declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used by the government as an excuse to deny or disparage other unnamed and unnamable rights retained by the people.
So, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop,
we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government
has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.
If the government can restrain the freedom to travel on the basis of an immutable characteristic of birth, there is no limit to the restraints it can impose."
Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 07:37:06 AMIf one is willing to submit to a test of values, willing to learn the language and a shared commitment to the success of American idealism, then, and only then were they welcomed.
This is almost reasonable, sadly, this isn't our immigration system today.
Today, we have quotas, we have a bias based on national origin.
It would take someone from India nearly 70 years to enter into the country legally, over a 100 for certain South American nations. That's the same as saying "no".
And that's for people who meet one of the 4 requirements I listed earlier.
For others, there just isn't a line, we will not accept them. Their only ways to get here are either to break the law, or abuse asylum. We have given them no other option.
QuoteWe have these laws in order to protect American culture. A massive influx of a foreign culture is detrimental to that of our own, hence the reason for quota limitations.
Cynicism, the 19th century had us flooded with immigrants, our values remained intact.
This view point ignores our own history.
QuoteOur Founders believed that growing the numbers of like minded individuals that wanted to share our ideals, would strengthen the new Nation, and it "Did".
Uh, not so:
"
Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious," - Benjamin Franklin
More than a few of the Founders were insecure about the
German immigrants coming here. They still decided to keep the door open.
Notice how similiar their claims are to yours today. Notice equally, that history proved them wrong in the end.
Remember also, that them being wrong took time: in the turn of the 20th century,
700 German newspapers were in print here, and this was years after German immigration spiked in the 1870s. People held onto to things for over a generation, but assimilation ultimately set in. If not in the 1st generation, then in their children.
QuoteWhat do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.
Try this: in the 1790s, our Population was 3 million. By the 1840s, it was 30 million. A 10 fold increase, think that was done by births alone?
Also: Once again, Chinese = most productive people on the planet.
Hong Kong? Singapore? Taiwan? You
bet your ass I'd like more of the kind of culture that produces that effect
here.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 23, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
History says differently.
When it speaks to "the people", the Constitution recognizes three categories; Citizens, Denizens, and Aliens. Denizens were Free Blacks, Native Americans, or anyone else that lived within the country that weren't recognized as citizens. Aliens were foreign nationals, like the Spanish in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Brits in the Ohio Valley or Canada, that wandered into America to do trade.
All of these categories had rights, no one was "more equal", Citizens just had the added privilege of voting.
Once Again, Judge Napolitano:
"Americans are not possessed of more natural rights than non-Americans; rather, we enjoy more opportunities to exercise those rights because the government is theoretically restrained by the Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the natural law. That recognition is articulated in the Ninth Amendment, which declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used by the government as an excuse to deny or disparage other unnamed and unnamable rights retained by the people.
So, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop, we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.
If the government can restrain the freedom to travel on the basis of an immutable characteristic of birth, there is no limit to the restraints it can impose."
I don't give a damn what Nap says on any given issue, he is just another voice in the wilderness hearing his own echo.
Like I said, you can't have it both ways when claiming natural law and trampling the Rights of American citizens.
Now answer my question!
"What do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.
Tell me how our culture would survive?"
Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
Now answer my question!
"What do you suppose would happen if 20 million Chinese entered every year for 10 years.
Tell me how our culture would survive?"
20 million chinese would never immigrate here within a single year. Statements like that certainly deserve this thread's location in the "Nut House" as it were.
As a Biologist I must tell you that sub-species never migrate in such vast numbers unless there is some cataclysmic event that destroys all favorable habitat. For the Chinese, China and surrounding "future Chinese vassals" is their favorable habitat.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 23, 2014, 09:08:07 PM
20 million chinese would never immigrate here within a single year. Statements like that certainly deserve this thread's location in the "Nut House" as it were.
As a Biologist I must tell you that sub-species never migrate in such vast numbers unless there is some cataclysmic event that destroys all favorable habitat. For the Chinese, China and surrounding "future Chinese vassals" is their favorable habitat.
Heh. Why didn't you just say, "No, Solar, I won't answer your question." Seven words, zero bullshit, mission accomplished.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 23, 2014, 09:46:20 PM
Heh. Why didn't you just say, "No, Solar, I won't answer your question." Seven words, zero bullshit, mission accomplished.
300 million Americans.
220 million whites
80 million minorities, # of asians insignificant.
While your example is ridiculous and absurd, let us think for a moment what else would happen in such a world, and keep an open mind because, well, weird shit happens when you get to talking about that. Care to read a long-ass post? I'll try to keep it short.
20 million a year brings a total of 300 million chinese in just 15 years, reducing China's population considerably. In those 15 years lets say there are now 250 million whites and 120 million other minorities. And lets say that US immigration laws don't change, meaning that 99.99% of these immigrants will be illegal. Basically what happens, is that violence starts to occur, China intervenes and calls a peace accord with the UN. Eventually the US splits into Asian US on the west coast and european US on the east coast. Or aka Whites + Latinos vs Chinese. In this environment Florida would probably secede as well to form an independent Latino-American state, after much violence and a forced march into the government buildings. The only real alternative to this, assuming US solidarity, is mass-riots, and unlimited casualties in both deaths and property damage, until there is some sort of riot/rebellion/revolution/march that results in immigration reform or outright Chinese automatic citizenship. Basically, as with the laws of supply and demand, if there is a demand for a people "AKA Whites" to live in a place where another people live "AKA Native Americans", and the invader outnumbers the locals, the invader wins. What would happen is that the Chinese would become US citizens whether we wanted them to or not, and we would have to like it and to accept minority status. But all of this is an absurd and exaggerated notion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There, I "answered" your stupid and puerile question. I had to do something while baking Lasagna.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. Also keep in mind that China is across the sea. Where will they find the ships? At some point it would be declared an invasion and the US would form a blockade and start shooting boats out of the water, at which point China would probably threaten nuclear war, at which point we would either start WWIII over race, which would never happen and should never happen, OR we would be forced to take it in the ass .... and by that point we would probably have to concede citizenship to all invading chinese just because we caused an international incident and only would we do this to prevent a nuclear war .... and then everyone in office would be Chinese within a generation or two beyond the initial 15 years. And by that time everyone in this forum will be dead so really who cares?
PPS. At the root it is raw population movement, with one population invading a space and out-competing the local population by pure merit of numbers. But in the real world, if China were to do this, it would probably cost more in terms of Shippage Fuel for transportation than they could possibly stand to gain. Not to mention that it would be considerably awkward and dangerous for all parties during the take-over period.
What I am trying to say is that the numbers of immigrants we would normally get, by historical merit, would be exactly the number we would be able to cope with. Raw and irrational hatred and fear typically lead the immigrants to adopt local culture and assimilate, with small pockets retaining their cultural identity. And thus the US was spared, yet again .... honestly the idea that the US would simply "become" Mexico is purile, infantile, and absurd. Any costs you can come up with would disappear within 2 generations. And at least illegals are willing to work, unlike 3rd generation Welfare babies.
Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
I don't give a damn what Nap says on any given issue, he is just another voice in the wilderness hearing his own echo.
Like I said, you can't have it both ways when claiming natural law and trampling the Rights of American citizens.
The Founders had it "both ways" as you call it. They didn't see the contradiction. Open Borders. Millions of immigrants coming to outnumber the original colonists and their descendents.
German is the most common blood-nationality in the U.S., not English. You think that's a coincidence?
QuoteNow answer my question!
I did. We had A 10 fold increase in population in just 50 years by 1840. Most of that was immigration. How do you explain our survival? How do you explain the Founders being wrong about the Germans, even as they were right? There were those who
did hold onto their language, who didn't assimilate?
The answer, should be the same to your question.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 23, 2014, 09:08:07 PM
20 million chinese would never immigrate here within a single year. Statements like that certainly deserve this thread's location in the "Nut House" as it were.
As a Biologist I must tell you that sub-species never migrate in such vast numbers unless there is some cataclysmic event that destroys all favorable habitat. For the Chinese, China and surrounding "future Chinese vassals" is their favorable habitat.
First off. Bull Shit! No one can predict the future as to what disaster befalls the planet and causes massive immigration around the globe.
And second, who the Fuck asked you? I'm awaiting the child genius' answer..
Quote from: Solar on August 24, 2014, 07:29:51 AM
First off. Bull Shit! No one can predict the future as to what disaster befalls the planet and causes massive immigration around the globe.
And second, who the Fuck asked you? I'm awaiting the child genius' answer..
Solar, how old are you? Because I'm willing to guess that you are 27-37 age range, and your parents either bought you a house or gave you some sizable bank account or inheritance.
Either way your head is so far up your ass that your back up to where your neck would be .... I am just wondering why.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 24, 2014, 10:09:27 AM
Solar, how old are you? Because I'm willing to guess that you are 27-37 age range, and your parents either bought you a house or gave you some sizable bank account or inheritance.
Either way your head is so far up your ass that your back up to where your neck would be .... I am just wondering why.
LOL! Retired in my early 40s as a self made wealthy man, and that was just shy of 20 years ago, and no doubt far more accomplished than you'll ever dream of.
But please, enlightened my academic friend, if China were to have a catastrophic event, one where plant nor animal was surviving due to severe drought, meteor, deep freeze, do you actually think over 1 billion people would stay and die?
There have been massive migrations in history, just that most happened before recorded history.
But for some reason you're an authority of future events, why?
Oh, and based on your writing skill and knowledge base, I'd put you in your late 20s to early 30s, more opinion, than intellect.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 23, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
History says differently.
When it speaks to "the people", the Constitution recognizes three categories; Citizens, Denizens, and Aliens. Denizens were Free Blacks, Native Americans, or anyone else that lived within the country that weren't recognized as citizens. Aliens were foreign nationals, like the Spanish in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Brits in the Ohio Valley or Canada, that wandered into America to do trade.
All of these categories had rights, no one was "more equal", Citizens just had the added privilege of voting.
Once Again, Judge Napolitano:
"Americans are not possessed of more natural rights than non-Americans; rather, we enjoy more opportunities to exercise those rights because the government is theoretically restrained by the Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the natural law. That recognition is articulated in the Ninth Amendment, which declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used by the government as an excuse to deny or disparage other unnamed and unnamable rights retained by the people.
So, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop, we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.
If the government can restrain the freedom to travel on the basis of an immutable characteristic of birth, there is no limit to the restraints it can impose."
I'm not sure which constitution you're referring to. The US Constitution does not contain the word 'denizen,' so it can hardly be said to recognize that state of existence, which historically has been based in British law, but abandoned even by them for over a century.
I note too that you refer to the "privilege of voting." I suggest that's a concept you should keep close and use often. Throughout our history, the privilege of voting, even for citizens, has been restricted in various ways or even revoked completely. Even today, certain convicted criminals and those who were dishonorably discharged from military service are denied the privilege of voting in some states.
Your quote from Napolitano illustrates perfectly the disconnects in his logic on the matter. The assertions in his first paragraph are logical and defensible in general, but his use of those assertions to prove what he says in his second paragraph falls on its face.
His assertion, for example, that the Ninth Amendment somehow articulates the rights of people outside the US is ridiculous. He seems to think the use of the phrase "the people" in the US Constitution refers to anyone on the planet. It does not.
Further his brief discussion of immigration in the second paragraph makes little sense. In particular, his assertion that the US government has 'no moral right' to prevent unfettered immigration is specious and foolish. Governments don't have moral rights. They have powers, and one of those powers we have entrusted to our federal government is to establish and enforce the borders of the nation, including the human and material traffic crossing those borders. To fail in that respect is to commit national suicide.
Many nations in the course of history have built physical barriers to emigration. Think Berlin Wall. I can think of only two that have built physical barriers to immigration: the xenophobic Chinese, and the United States. My point is that all nations must and do control their borders in order to remain nations.
You're advocating the dissolution of the United States as a nation.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 24, 2014, 01:17:36 PM
I'm not sure which constitution you're referring to. The US Constitution does not contain the word 'denizen,' so it can hardly be said to recognize that state of existence
It refers to them implicitly:
"
...between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
And "the people" does refer to more than just citizens, this we know, due to the Constitution's use of the word "person"
"
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."This establishes that "person" is more than just citizens.
"
...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"
'counting' here then includes Free Blacks, and Indians who are taxed.
You also can find use of "Denizen" in laws of the period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1798).
QuoteI note too that you refer to the "privilege of voting."
And I chose "privilege" intentionally, for the very fact it can be stripped away more easily than out-and-out rights.
Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be.
QuoteHis assertion, for example, that the Ninth Amendment somehow articulates the rights of people outside the US is ridiculous. He seems to think the use of the phrase "the people" in the US Constitution refers to anyone on the planet. It does not.
It does because of how we say rights came about.
Rights, are
not established by our Government, they are
not established by the Constitution.
The Constitution itself simply recognizes their existence, it did not create them,
save those that require affirmative action on the Part of the Government, like "right to due process" or "right to an attorney".
Even those rights are simply a reaction to the rights it did not create, the Natural Rights, rights like "Freedom of Religion, speech, peaceful assembly, press, bear arms, etc." These are rights that pre-exist. Rights that exist because we (human beings) exists, and cost nothing to be recognized.
Why do we have these rights? Because we are human, not because we are Americans, not because of citizenship, but because we are sovereign entities each, like a nation unto ourselves.
A gun is our military, our lawyers our ambassador, our property our domain.
That is the American experiment, to treat individuals as if they were nations.
QuoteFurther his brief discussion of immigration in the second paragraph makes little sense. In particular, his assertion that the US government has 'no moral right' to prevent unfettered immigration is specious and foolish. Governments don't have moral rights. They have powers, and one of those powers we have entrusted to our federal government is to establish and enforce the borders of the nation, including the human and material traffic crossing those borders. To fail in that respect is to commit national suicide.
And this ignores our own history, our own experience.
Open border for 140 years, immigrants came to outnumber the originals. We were not only fine, our economy grew immensely because of it. Singapore again is pushing for more foreign workers than natives, nigh-half of Hong Kong's populace at any time is Foreign ex-pats. Neither is at risk for "suicide" culturally or legally, the worst that can be said is the rise in demand of living space, which is a market matter anyway, and it is the market itself which hems in the effects.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PM
It refers to them implicitly:"...between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
No, it refers to them in no way whatsoever. Claiming an "implicit" reference is an admittance that there is actually no reference at all, but you'd really like for there to be one. Regardless of what you'd really like to be the case, the US Constitution contains NO reference, implied or otherwise, to 'denizens.' It would behoove you not to fuck with me in that manner in the future.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PMAnd "the people" does refer to more than just citizens, this we know, due to the Constitution's use of the word "person"
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."
This establishes that "person" is more than just citizens.
Okay, the Constitution recognizes that there are "persons" that are not "Citizens of the United States." What's your point? How can you not see the clear separation of privilege? How can you not understand that the Constitution is going to treat "citizens" differently from "persons?"
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PM
"...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"
'counting' here then includes Free Blacks, and Indians who are taxed.
You also can find use of "Denizen" in laws of the period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1798).
The word 'denizen' can be found in mighty few laws of the period. It was a feature of Virginia colonial law before the Constitution was ratified, but it's pretty hard to find much other than that in American law, as you have undoubtedly discovered. You're barking up an empty tree, and you know it.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PM
And I chose "privilege" intentionally, for the very fact it can be stripped away more easily than out-and-out rights.
Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be.
It does because of how we say rights came about.
Rights, are not established by our Government, they are not established by the Constitution.
The Constitution itself simply recognizes their existence, it did not create them, save those that require affirmative action on the Part of the Government, like "right to due process" or "right to an attorney".
Even those rights are simply a reaction to the rights it did not create, the Natural Rights, rights like "Freedom of Religion, speech, peaceful assembly, press, bear arms, etc." These are rights that pre-exist. Rights that exist because we (human beings) exists, and cost nothing to be recognized.
Why do we have these rights? Because we are human, not because we are Americans, not because of citizenship, but because we are sovereign entities each, like a nation unto ourselves.
A gun is our military, our lawyers our ambassador, our property our domain. That is the American experiment, to treat individuals as if they were nations.
And this ignores our own history, our own experience.
By God, you DO have the spirit of America in you! Praise BE!!!
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PMOpen border for 140 years, immigrants came to outnumber the originals. We were not only fine, our economy grew immensely because of it.
Of course. For 140 years (I'm willing to use your timeframe), there was no point in closing the borders or limiting immigration. With the settling of the Northwest Territories, the purchase of Louisana, and the conquest of ALL of Mexico -- including the core we gave them back -- there was more property than a small nation could manage. But if you can't see the differences between, and the reasons for, radically altered immigration policies after around 1920, you need to do some serious reading.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PMSingapore again is pushing for more foreign workers than natives, nigh-half of Hong Kong's populace at any time is Foreign ex-pats. Neither is at risk for "suicide" culturally or legally, the worst that can be said is the rise in demand of living space, which is a market matter anyway, and it is the market itself which hems in the effects.
Fuck Singapore and Hong Kong. Do you live there? I don't. I say again, if you think the situations in Singapore and Hong Kong are just exactly the same as the situation in the United States, you need to do some SERIOUS research.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 24, 2014, 06:08:22 PM
No, it refers to them in no way whatsoever. Claiming an "implicit" reference is an admittance that there is actually no reference at all,
That's the same as saying that the "Implied Powers" don't exist. Not everything surrounding the Constitution was explicitly stated. There are certain rights that we are privy to that the Constitution does not outright list. The Bill of Rights are not the only rights we have, simply a primer (though Hamilton was against them for the very reason he thought courts would take them that way.)
Further, James Madison:
"
(I)t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection."
So, Immigrants
were in mind, just not explicitly spoken on.
Quotethe US Constitution contains NO reference, implied or otherwise, to 'denizens.'
Yes it does, "persons" include more than just citizens, and it deals with them. Even Indians not taxed, equally, are denizens, as the legal language was used.
Slaves, who were apart of the 3/5 compromise, are denizens. The Constitution was set up to phase slavery out, so it was built-in that these rights would eventually be affirmed for them too.
QuoteOkay, the Constitution recognizes that there are "persons" that are not "Citizens of the United States." What's your point? How can you not see the clear separation of privilege?
The privileges are voting and running for office.
That is the difference. Due Process, free speech and freedom of movement are not privileges, rather they are
rights, and as James Madison pointed out, Aliens are not precluded from them.
The only power Congress has over immigration, is control over naturalization. E.g. as the law I linked to dealt with, how long exactly the immigrants had to wait, in that case 14 years, before they could be declared "citizens".
Thomas Jefferson however thought even
that law was pushing Constitutional muster, and repealed it only 3 years later.
QuoteOf course. For 140 years (I'm willing to use your timeframe), there was no point in closing the borders or limiting immigration.
You missed part of the point.
Because the Founders saw no reason to restrict immigration, the Constitution does not
give Congress the power to restrict it. For them to legally have that power would take an amendment.
Whether they were right to leave out that power is a relevant, but separate, issue.
Now, this admittedly is just the
Federal Government, there is cause to say that the
States, thanks to the 10th amendment, have the power to restrict immigration (and even in the 19th century, some did pass laws to this end).
I have no issue with affirming that. If states make a few breaks from Natural Law, the other states simply through the competition of Social experiments will show why they're wrong.
QuoteFuck Singapore and Hong Kong. Do you live there? I don't. I say again, if you think the situations in Singapore and Hong Kong are just exactly the same as the situation in the United States, you need to do some SERIOUS research.
These are
city states. They have even less room to spare than we do. They are much more easily skewed by immigration inflows than we are. Every single one of your claims is
worse for them.
Hell, we have more room to spare than most other nations. The average land development density of nations across the world is 10%. We're at
5%. We have
plenty of room.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 24, 2014, 06:08:22 PM
It would behoove you not to fuck with me in that manner in the future.
:lol:
Three of your posts, tops, and he'll be doing this....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqrbqkbgsqsbtxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwdkttwrwt%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fawwwcyberbully02300x356-vi.jpg&hash=e5ccbdebad643422e1e53dba946c932b0af24f4a)
Quote from: quiller on August 24, 2014, 08:12:32 PM
:lol:
Three of your posts, tops, and he'll be doing this...
Nah, already had that experience. Made an Al Sharpton joke about it, didn't go over well.
Quote from: quiller on August 24, 2014, 08:12:32 PM
:lol:
Three of your posts, tops, and he'll be doing this....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqrbqkbgsqsbtxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwdkttwrwt%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fawwwcyberbully02300x356-vi.jpg&hash=e5ccbdebad643422e1e53dba946c932b0af24f4a)
:tounge: Oh, I think the boy has a bit more hide on him than that. Of course, he has a lot to learn...
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 23, 2014, 03:59:27 AM
"You can only block illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to."
Do you realize you just made a fool of yourself with the above post? Damn, don't you understand the definition of ILLEGAL?
He knows quite well, and he cares nothing for the "Rule of Law", by definition, he cares nothing for the Constitution as it stands, which is why he insists on translating it to fit an agenda under the guise of economic growth.
Something that obviously is way beyond his comprehension.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 23, 2014, 07:12:36 PM
This is almost reasonable, sadly, this isn't our immigration system today.
Today, we have quotas, we have a bias based on national origin.
It would take someone from India nearly 70 years to enter into the country legally, over a 100 for certain South American nations. That's the same as saying "no".
And that's for people who meet one of the 4 requirements I listed earlier.
For others, there just isn't a line, we will not accept them. Their only ways to get here are either to break the law, or abuse asylum. We have given them no other option.
Cynicism, the 19th century had us flooded with immigrants, our values remained intact.
This view point ignores our own history.
Uh, not so:
"Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious," - Benjamin Franklin
More than a few of the Founders were insecure about the German immigrants coming here. They still decided to keep the door open.
Notice how similiar their claims are to yours today. Notice equally, that history proved them wrong in the end.
Remember also, that them being wrong took time: in the turn of the 20th century, 700 German newspapers were in print here, and this was years after German immigration spiked in the 1870s. People held onto to things for over a generation, but assimilation ultimately set in. If not in the 1st generation, then in their children.
Try this: in the 1790s, our Population was 3 million. By the 1840s, it was 30 million. A 10 fold increase, think that was done by births alone?
Also: Once again, Chinese = most productive people on the planet.
Hong Kong? Singapore? Taiwan? You bet your ass I'd like more of the kind of culture that produces that effect here.
Europeans that actually shared our ideals , while fleeing communism, which only helped strengthen our Nation
And beyond that point was the gold rush in the mid 1800s the majority of which returned to their native country.
Again, what gives you the idea a billion Chinese, (made legal under your version) would show allegiance to the US when voting?
Which is the design behind our immigration laws, that people are willing to learn the language, our laws and assimilate.
People willing to jump through hoops are the kind of people we want, people with perseverance, a willingness to succeed.
These are the qualities the country needs to grow, not a bunch of slave class workers to steal entry level jobs from our own citizens.
Can you distinguish between the two?
Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 06:21:54 AM
Europeans that actually shared our ideals ,
Not always the case..
Germans fleeing Nazi Germany were remarked by F.A. Hayek to still have large sympathies to National Socialism.
Communism was many items hallmarked by popular revolutions, with certain factions that became ostracized by the main one that took power. Followers of Trotsky certainly weren't safe in Russia anymore than the Whites, nor the followers of Nestor Makhno who wanted a anarchist Free Territory Ukraine.
Being enemies, doesn't suddenly make you a capitalist.
QuoteAnd beyond that point was the gold rush in the mid 1800s the majority of which returned to their native country.
Just goes to show why it's not bad to let them in.
People moving during the Gold Rush were also being motivated by the 1848 Revolution in Europe, and the Taiping Rebellion in China that went on for 14 years. This immensely increased the population of California, allowing it to apply for State status.
QuoteAgain, what gives you the idea a billion Chinese, (made legal under your version) would show allegiance to the US when voting?
(A billion? Really? Almost all of their population?)
1. I'm not suggesting you automatically give them citizenship. Letting them work & Live here without that right has precedent, it's called permanent residency.
2. They *somehow* developed this allegiance when coming here in the 19th century. And Asians are the minority group most likely to vote Republican, they're leading the charge in California right now against Affirmative-action (http://www.mintpressnews.com/bid-to-revive-affirmative-action-in-calif-roils-asian-americans/189978/).
QuoteWhich is the design behind our immigration laws, that people are willing to learn the language, our laws and assimilate.
You keep omitting the last part, "skills because we don't want you to compete against poor Americans" which is nonsense. Immigrants with skills compete against more Americans than the "unskilled", and regardless, it helps us our economy bring them in.
Helped us in the 19th century, despite most being uneducated, low-skilled, and speaking no English.
People like my Norwegian Great-Grandfather, who could not have come here under today's laws.
QuotePeople willing to jump through hoops
No, you're retro-actively attaching virtue to a system that is obstructive in fact, and that obstructive bleeds over to Americans who need immigrant labor to run their business.
Obstructive systems just make things worse.
Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 06:05:32 AM
He knows quite well, and he cares nothing for the "Rule of Law", by definition, he cares nothing for the Constitution as it stands,
You apparently don't care. You state you don't believe in Natural law, as both paraphrased and directly named in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, yes, they were paraphrasing
John Locke.), and used as Precedent by Supreme Court Justices in the Founding Era, and as professed today by Clarence Thomas.
You keep ignoring that we had open borders for 140 years, to a positive effect.
You keep side-stepping the history, ignoring the precedent, ignoring that the Founders themselves, despite their own
huge reservations about the German immigrants that would eventually come to outnumber the English, still embraced open immigration. And history proved them right for doing it.
"Agenda"? Then why do free market groups, like CATO, like the Manhattan institute, like Frasier, all push for more legal immigration? Why did
they teach me this? What's their "agenda", exactly?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 25, 2014, 01:41:30 PM
Not always the case..
Germans fleeing Nazi Germany were remarked by F.A. Hayek to still have large sympathies to National Socialism.
Stop moving the damned goal post!
QuoteTry this: in the 1790s, our Population was 3 million. By the 1840s, it was 30 million. A 10 fold increase, think that was done by births alone?
Quote(A billion? Really? Almost all of their population?)
I gave a scenario as to it's probability.
Quote1. I'm not suggesting you automatically give them citizenship. Letting them work & Live here without that right has precedent, it's called permanent residency.
What do you suppose would happen to this country ifd suddenly 2 times the current population settled here?
This is my entire point, either people take the time to assimilate, or they forget about entering the country.
Quote2. They *somehow* developed this allegiance when coming here in the 19th century. And Asians are the minority group most likely to vote Republican, they're leading the charge in California right now against Affirmative-action (http://www.mintpressnews.com/bid-to-revive-affirmative-action-in-calif-roils-asian-americans/189978/).
They are also culturally opposites of Latins, so they assimilate better.
QuoteYou keep omitting the last part, "skills because we don't want you to compete against poor Americans" which is nonsense. Immigrants with skills compete against more Americans than the "unskilled", and regardless, it helps us our economy bring them in.
Skilled immigrants add to prosperity of the nation, unskilled simply make it cheaper for corporations to operate and compete.
QuoteHelped us in the 19th century, despite most being uneducated, low-skilled, and speaking no English.
Sheesh! The majority of Americans were farmers.
You really aren't very good at this I see.
QuotePeople like my Norwegian Great-Grandfather, who could not have come here under today's laws.
No, you're retro-actively attaching virtue to a system that is obstructive in fact, and that obstructive bleeds over to Americans who need immigrant labor to run their business.
Obstructive systems just make things worse.
We're not farmers anymore either, so your claim falls lat on it's face!
And why are you so pro corporate, corporate today is not the same as it was before NAFTA, now it's Crony Capitalism, EG. GE who's head is part of this Marxist administrations Cabinet .
Small business is still the largest employer in the country, and we should be removing blockades making it easier for them to grow, not making it easier for corporations to put them out of business via cheap unskilled labor.
Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 05:03:15 PM
Stop moving the damned goal post!
In the same paragraph I quoted from you were invoking Communists. Communism was started in 19th century but the uprisings you were mentioning occurred in the 20th.
You opened the door for it yourself.
QuoteWhat do you suppose would happen to this country ifd suddenly 2 times the current population settled here?
Just to say, going to extremes is a form of straw man argumentation.
I already told you Singapore is inviting a larger foreign population than they have native, I told you Germans, who the Founders were suspicious of for the same reasons you accuse the Hispanics and Asians, came to outnumber the original colonists.
And I told you that these Germans did not assimilate right away, holding onto their language so that several hundred newspapers were in print in German, decades after their arrival, and America ended up adopting many of their traditions.
Like putting gifts under a tree, and Oktoberfest.
When are you going to address them?
QuoteThey are also culturally opposites of Latins, so they assimilate better.
A too-convenient outlook, and one Pew itself shows no clear distinction on (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/12/11/between-two-worlds-how-young-latinos-come-of-age-in-america/).
QuoteAnd why are you so pro corporate, corporate today is not the same as it was before NAFTA, now it's Crony Capitalism, EG. GE who's head is part of this Marxist administrations Cabinet .
QuoteSmall business is still the largest employer in the country, and we should be removing blockades making it easier for them to grow, not making it easier for corporations to put them out of business via cheap unskilled labor.
And see? Cynicism, as I said earlier. This is your true objection I take it?
Having more immigration is not cronyist, and you already have the evidence well in hand to see why.
That Farmer, is he the face of big business to you? What with no smartphone, and a computer likely still running Windows 2000? He's just a fat cat that needs to be taken down a peg?
Small businesses need cheap labor even more than big ones do, because their profit margins are equally smaller. Wal mart once put its weight behind a measure to raise the minimum wage, because it understood that doing so would drive many of it's smaller competitors out of business.
If we want a better, more vibrant economy, you need people. You certainly don't get it with population growth straddling decline, like we are without all the immigrant we get.
You want to see what that leads to? Go look at the greying Russia or Japan.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 09:44:48 PM
Small businesses need cheap labor even more than big ones do, because their profit margins are equally smaller.
I see no need to continue this nonsense. You know absolutely nothing about business/industry, yet think you know better than business what's best for them.
As an owner of small businesses all my life and a CEO and corporate owner as well, I think I'm far more qualified on the subject than some myopic kid spewing LIBertarian bull shit, that only recently left the nest.
So run along son, you bore the Hell out of me.
Quote from: Solar on August 27, 2014, 05:45:07 AM
I see no need to continue this nonsense. You know absolutely nothing about business/industry, yet think you know better than business what's best for them.
It's businesses and Farmers who are asking more to be let in.
... And you just shifted your position, First it was "cronyism" ergo, you were admitting that businesses wanted the labor so as to "lower their costs", now you're saying that's just a lie?
QuoteAs an owner of small businesses all my life and a CEO and corporate owner as well, I think I'm far more qualified on the subject than some myopic kid spewing LIBertarian bull shit,
"
What's good enough for me, is good enough for all"?
Even if I accept your claim, you're not the only business owner out there. As the video shows on that Farmer story (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/17/immigration-guest-workers/1946699/) I gave you, an entire
association of Agricultural professionals in North Carolina are pushing for more immigrants, insisting that they need them, that they
need the labor.
What is your answer to them? Just suck it up? Keep in mind, these folks are Americans in one of the hardest lines of work out there.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 06:36:45 AM
It's businesses and Farmers who are asking more to be let in.
... And you just shifted your position, First it was "cronyism" ergo, you were admitting that businesses wanted the labor so as to "lower their costs", now you're saying that's just a lie?
"What's good enough for me, is good enough for all"?
You just proved my point. Now go back and reread the thread and you'll get it.
Note the dividing line between "Small business and Corporate Monster" They are not even remotely the same.
QuoteEven if I accept your claim, you're not the only business owner out there. As the video shows on that Farmer story (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/17/immigration-guest-workers/1946699/) I gave you, an entire association of Agricultural professionals in North Carolina are pushing for more immigrants, insisting that they need them, that they need the labor.
What is your answer to them? Just suck it up? Keep in mind, these folks are Americans in one of the hardest lines of work out there.
Who said I had an issue with guest workers? Not that I believe we still need them, but at least they return home every season and are not afforded privileges of citizenship.
Sadly, our Ag. industry has become dependent upon their cheap labor since the inception of the Bracero program of the 40s.
Something govt has taken advantage of with it's symbiotic leech host relationship with agriculture.
Simple solution? Get govt out of business, put them back in the business of protecting States from foreign invaders, and let the Free mkt find it's natural equilibrium.
You say you're for Liberty, freedom, right? Then why do you insist the Govt control free mkt interests by flooding the country and artificially forcing lower wages and removing these jobs from the average citizen?
Quote from: Solar on August 27, 2014, 07:02:30 AM
You just proved my point.
No, because cheap labor is a good thing in the eyes of economists.
You think it's about wages, bit in fact, the crucial detail is purchasing power parity. People didn't become better off because wages increased, but because each dollar they earned cold buy a little more overtime as the price of enmities dropped.
Labor costs are part to what is incorporated into the price of a good or service, if labor costs go down, then so too ultimately does the price.
QuoteYou say you're for Liberty, freedom, right? Then why do you insist the Govt control free mkt interests by flooding the country and artificially forcing lower wages and removing these jobs from the average citizen?
Because it's not Government that "floods" us, that's the free market. That's what people are
choosing to do, uncoerced.
All of the Immigrants
choose to come here, and businesses
choose to hire them. Where is the Gov't in that?
They're coming here to begin with because we "flood" their country with food cheaper than they're farmers can produce. That puts many of their farmers out of business, so they come here both looking for work, and to learn how exactly we make our food so much more efficiently.
If Zimbabwe farmers had been like that with the white colonists, they'd still be a breadbasket instead of a basket case that can't feed itself.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 01:45:55 PM
No, because cheap labor is a good thing in the eyes of economists.
You think it's about wages, bit in fact, the crucial detail is purchasing power parity. People didn't become better off because wages increased, but because each dollar they earned cold buy a little more overtime as the price of enmities dropped.
Labor costs are part to what is incorporated into the price of a good or service, if labor costs go down, then so too ultimately does the price.
Because it's not Government that "floods" us, that's the free market. That's what people are choosing to do, uncoerced.
All of the Immigrants choose to come here, and businesses choose to hire them. Where is the Gov't in that?
They're coming here to begin with because we "flood" their country with food cheaper than they're farmers can produce. That puts many of their farmers out of business, so they come here both looking for work, and to learn how exactly we make our food so much more efficiently.
If Zimbabwe farmers had been like that with the white colonists, they'd still be a breadbasket instead of a basket case that can't feed itself.
The price of enmities? What the hell are you talking about?
I must say I like the direction in which this thread is going. Truthfully with the agricultural product we could probably support a population of three times the size (at about 900 million) if we stopped all foreign food-aid and introduced just a few common sense programs. Just take the money for such programs away from Govt intervention in the farming industry (such as Subsidies that encourage farmers to grow *less*) and redistrict some of the great plains states into growing metropolitan centers (preferably non-arable land).
A. The primary obstacle would be delivering food to cities, as well as an increasing demand of fresh water and water for showers. I would argue for a combination of public showering facilities and increased availability of fresh water, refined from sea-water as the technology becomes available. For the food, we should see an increase in hydroponics, especially for roof-top gardens and home-gardens, sometimes without the availability for otherwise ideal conditions for food production.
B. I would argue for limited de-urbanization coupled with the re-introduction of the small farm owner. It is clear that "Hippie Communes" are a radical and drug addled version of the strive to go off-grid, however Communes are NOT the answer as would appear obvious within the minds of all present. Instead, facilities such as the ones I am familiar with should help teach people how to grow their own produce.
C. The introduction of on-site livestock facilities could keep the meat-proportionality, or in other words would allow us to eat American quantities of meat without the need to convert into practical vegetarians due to the inherent inefficiencies of meat production. Animal Feed could be grown in on-site hydroponics along with for-human produce and then be processed into feed in a small facility near the livestock pens.
D. The introduction of micro-farms allowed by technological breakthroughs and increased awareness for the need of local farming, even in urbanized areas, will allow for increased SELF OWNERSHIP and a reduced need for MONSTER CORPORATIONS.
E. In the mean time I would argue for SEPARATE MINIMUM WAGES for resident migrant workers and legally born US citizens. It should take TWO GENERATIONS for such 'illegal' migrant workers to become patriated citizens, meaning the grandchildren of the people that crossed the border become full citizens worth a full citizen's minimum wage.
F. My goal is for the minimum wage for "legalized illegals" to be between 5 and 7 dollars, and for the minimum wage for full citizens to be at least between the range of 8 and 10 dollars.
G. Introduction of Trade schools, (for blue collar jobs such as heavy machinery operation) should be encouraged as a legal alternative to High School (within the standards of compulsory education). Especially for 2nd class citizens such as "Legalized Illegals." Ideally, there would be farming trade schools to allow for 2nd class citizens to learn farming techniques that they may work for local citizen-farmers, reintroducing the "farm hand" culture, further emphasizing local farms and business.
H. There should be incentives for 2nd class citizens to migrate to un-used land, whether to work at a 'new' farm in un-used arable land, or to work in construction of new urban centers in unused non-arable land (in areas that can still support life relatively easily). With the introduction of hydroponics "livable" land will become almost synonymous with "land" so long as we have a way to refine sea-water into usable drinking water (or at least water good enough for farming) AND we also find a way to GET said sea-water to the inland populations. My favorite method would be via large 'Water Pipelines' somewhat similar to modern day 'Oil Pipelines'.
I. An alternate way for 2nd class citizens to become full citizens would be to serve honorably within the US military for at least 5 years, not including the national guard or the reserves. This runs in some parallel to Caesar (and other Roman generals) giving land to his veterans after successful campaigns. In their time they used newly conquered lands to settle their immigrant veterans (soldiers serving that were racially Gallic, Germanic, Briton, or Iberian) however in the modern day we could simply use the new urban centers created in previously unused lands now livable due to hydroponics, sea-water processing plants, and sea-water pipelines. ------------->> (of course we could just as easily populate such veterans into foreign lands that were depopulated in accordance with a resistance to US rule or occupation)
PS (to Solar) -> If a massive incident were to occur in China, that was limited only to China, and was a purely natural phenomenon (as in, not alien invasion, or anything quite so wild), then yes a large number of immigrants would arrive here illegally on ship, but no where approaching 20 million .. I'd put a cap at around 1 million per year at best. Still, the vast majority of immigrants, with no money for shipping, etc, would flood into neighboring countries such as Russia, Thailand, and India. I will grant you that there might even be some emergency invasion to take Korea for the remaining Chinese survivors, as such a group would no longer be bothered by the threat of nuclear retaliation.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 27, 2014, 03:05:52 PM
The price of enmities? What the hell are you talking about?
Pardon, that should say "amenities", as in food, clothes, and fuel.