RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jtodd77 -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 3:05:53 PM)
I think the fundamental question to ask is "whose interests should the US immigration policy serve?" Should it serve the Democratic Party leaders'? Should it serve the Wall Street Journal's? Should it serve those of a migrant worker from Gautemala? Or so should it serve the interests of US citizens? Once upon a time, a nation's policies, ANY NATION, used to serve the interests of ITS CITIZENS, not sweat shop bosses or the Mexican government's. What a novel concept.

cadenas -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 3:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jtodd77 Illegal immigration is on balance bad for the citizens in the US as it increases competition for jobs, not just in agriculture but in construction, meatpacking etc., which used to have better wages. Before you scream at me, I want to clarify that I'm opposed to illegal immigration - but very much in favor of allowing the same number of people into the USA legally, which would afford them protection under labor laws, and many other benefits. That said, the reasoning here actually isn't sound. The increased competition for jobs is actually more than balanced by an increase in jobs from the increased demand. In fact, many city planners use the rule of thumb that each worker creates TWO additional jobs. That is why the USA, a large country, is economically so much more successful than most small countries (the Europeans actually banded together in the EU for the same reason). Illegal workers - but not legal ones - do drive down wages because they can't easily object to abusive labor practices. There is a flip side to the whole coin: if wages were to go back up, somebody has to pay for that. And that's the customer. Personally, I actually think that would be a good thing in the long run, but it would be a very painful adjustment. Remember the pain of $4.50 gasoline last year? Now imagine the pain when food prices suddenly tripled! quote: ORIGINAL: jtodd77 Plus illegals aliens take out more from the system than they pay in since they're paying taxes(if they're paying taxes at all) on lower wages, not to mention their birth rates are much higher, thus we have to pick up the tab for hospital bills, education etc. Not to mention the diminished quality of life we all experience due to overpopulation, traffic etc. Re. taxes: these are inherently low-wage jobs, so US citizens wouldn't pay much in taxes, either. A high birth rate is actually a benefit for us because it's essential for the Social Security system. The native-born population does not have enough children to sustain that. Overpopulation etc. is not a real problem in one of the least densely populated countries in the world. If we were talking about Germany, I could understand where you are coming from. They have 25% of the US population crammed into an area the size of Arizona.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 3:52:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jtodd77 I think the fundamental question to ask is "whose interests should the US immigration policy serve?" Should it serve the Democratic Party leaders'? Should it serve the Wall Street Journal's? Should it serve those of a migrant worker from Gautemala? Or so should it serve the interests of US citizens? Once upon a time, a nation's policies, ANY NATION, used to serve the interests of ITS CITIZENS, not sweat shop bosses or the Mexican government's. What a novel concept. Here's a novel concept: systems should serve everyone's interests. When everyone's interests can't be served equally well, a system should strive to serve the interests of those with the most dire and fundamental needs first.

blacksword404 -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 4:00:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth I'm still seriously not understanding the fundamental assumption, here. What does it mean to be a country? What does it mean for there to be a line in the sand that certain people are supposed to be on one side of, and certain other people are supposed to be on the other side of? In order to have a country you must be able to have your borders well defined and be able to defend those borders. In order to have a state you must have well defined borders and be able to defend them(which is not very necessary between states). To have Property with houses and other buildings on them you must have well defined property lines and be able to defend your borders. In the case of any of them if people can come and go as they please, enter your house at night, eat your food and watch your tv until all hours of the night, do you really have property lines that you control? Is it really your property? You may pay for the upkeep but do you have the full and exclusive use of it? I asume that you control the borders to your home. I asume you control it's use because you pay for it. Or are strangers free to enter your property when they please? Rilassarsi Blacksword

cadenas -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 5:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth quote: ORIGINAL: jtodd77 I think the fundamental question to ask is "whose interests should the US immigration policy serve?" Should it serve the Democratic Party leaders'? Should it serve the Wall Street Journal's? Should it serve those of a migrant worker from Gautemala? Or so should it serve the interests of US citizens? Once upon a time, a nation's policies, ANY NATION, used to serve the interests of ITS CITIZENS, not sweat shop bosses or the Mexican government's. What a novel concept. Here's a novel concept: systems should serve everyone's interests. When everyone's interests can't be served equally well, a system should strive to serve the interests of those with the most dire and fundamental needs first. The thing is that we disagree about just about everything: - Who is allowed to have an interest? We have pretty much a consensus that immigration law is designed for the benefit US citizens, and not for the benefit of foreigners. I agree with that, too. - What is likely to happen with any change we make? We've done extremely poorly on that; every attempt to control the border over the last 30 years has backfired and made the problem worse. - Even: what are the actual facts? Ultimately, what I noticed is that people think in terms of "solutions" instead of figuring out what the problem is. As a result, we keep repeating the same mistakes, only worse every time. East Germany went bankrupt over trying to secure a 300 mile border. Well, wake up, hardliners. Enforcement hasn't worked for 30 years, and it's not likely to work 100 years from now, either.

cadenas -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 5:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 In order to have a country you must be able to have your borders well defined and be able to defend those borders. In order to have a state you must have well defined borders and be able to defend them(which is not very necessary between states). To have Property with houses and other buildings on them you must have well defined property lines and be able to defend your borders. In the case of any of them if people can come and go as they please, enter your house at night, eat your food and watch your tv until all hours of the night, do you really have property lines that you control? Is it really your property? You may pay for the upkeep but do you have the full and exclusive use of it? I like that analogy, because it points out the reason we have failed to "protect our borders". Think about WHY most of us don't have security guards every ten feet along the fence: we offer a much better alternative. Imagine that you were the Mayor of Dallas, and you ordered all houses except your own demolished. Suddenly, even these armed security guards won't help you any more against those breaching the boundary of your property. Obviously, on the small scale we are smarter than that. Solving the illegal immigration issue actually is fairly easy - but neither party wants to do it. All we have to do is provide a realistic alternative. That can mean a Marshall Plan of sorts for Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Guatemala, and all countries in between - something that goes far beyond the feeble steps of NAFTA. Or we have to create a way for those people to come to the USA legally and quickly (not the up to 25 years that it currently takes to get a legal visa for those 4% who qualify at all)

FirmhandKY -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 5:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Solving the illegal immigration issue actually is fairly easy - but neither party wants to do it. All we have to do is provide a realistic alternative. That can mean a Marshall Plan of sorts for Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Guatemala, and all countries in between - something that goes far beyond the feeble steps of NAFTA. Why do I - as a US citizen - have to plan, pay for, execute and be responsible for a "Marshall Plan" for Mexico? Shouldn't the first priority of my government be the welfare of our own citizens? Resources are not infinite. Choices must be made. If it is my country, shouldn't those choices first benefit our citizens? Firm

cadenas -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 6:15:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Solving the illegal immigration issue actually is fairly easy - but neither party wants to do it. All we have to do is provide a realistic alternative. That can mean a Marshall Plan of sorts for Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Guatemala, and all countries in between - something that goes far beyond the feeble steps of NAFTA. Why do I - as a US citizen - have to plan, pay for, execute and be responsible for a "Marshall Plan" for Mexico? Shouldn't the first priority of my government be the welfare of our own citizens? Resources are not infinite. Choices must be made. If it is my country, shouldn't those choices first benefit our citizens? Firm Oh, I agree. We don't have to. And you are right, resources are limited. We've tried to secure the border for 30 years already, and you see the results. Yes, I agree. Choices must be made. Why should we choose to spend even more resources on something that's doomed from the start? Such a Marshall Plan would be a whole lot cheaper, and far more likely to work. Making legal immigrant visas accessible would be even cheaper. There is no free lunch.

Loki45 -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 6:23:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas You obviously haven't been to Southern California. Here in San Diego, it's more like the Berlin Wall. http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00DAgBs9SL0st/610x.jpg http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/017obUq7cCeev/610x.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/US-Mexico_border_fence.jpg You ARE entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts. The wall stops somewhere. So they can't cross it near a major thoroughfare. They can still cross it. In Texas, the "border" consists of a dry river bed. Real secure there.

blacksword404 -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 6:56:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 In order to have a country you must be able to have your borders well defined and be able to defend those borders. In order to have a state you must have well defined borders and be able to defend them(which is not very necessary between states). To have Property with houses and other buildings on them you must have well defined property lines and be able to defend your borders. In the case of any of them if people can come and go as they please, enter your house at night, eat your food and watch your tv until all hours of the night, do you really have property lines that you control? Is it really your property? You may pay for the upkeep but do you have the full and exclusive use of it? I like that analogy, because it points out the reason we have failed to "protect our borders". Think about WHY most of us don't have security guards every ten feet along the fence: we offer a much better alternative. Imagine that you were the Mayor of Dallas, and you ordered all houses except your own demolished. Suddenly, even these armed security guards won't help you any more against those breaching the boundary of your property. Obviously, on the small scale we are smarter than that. Solving the illegal immigration issue actually is fairly easy - but neither party wants to do it. All we have to do is provide a realistic alternative. That can mean a Marshall Plan of sorts for Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Guatemala, and all countries in between - something that goes far beyond the feeble steps of NAFTA. Or we have to create a way for those people to come to the USA legally and quickly (not the up to 25 years that it currently takes to get a legal visa for those 4% who qualify at all) I would be fine with the government allowing more people into the country legally. As long as it is based on our countries needs and not what other countries want. When you come in legally you get checked out. They find out who you are and I believe they do a health check. When people come here illegally neither of those things happen. And there is no control on the amount. Cut the amount who enter illegally and then and only then do we raise the amount who can come here legally. According to our countries needs. There is no reason it should take 25 years to get a legal visa. It would be good if they could get it down to 3-5 years. Gives the government time to do the checks and see if there is a need for you.

blacksword404 -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 7:10:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Oh, I agree. We don't have to. And you are right, resources are limited. We've tried to secure the border for 30 years already, and you see the results. Yes, I agree. Choices must be made. Why should we choose to spend even more resources on something that's doomed from the start? Such a Marshall Plan would be a whole lot cheaper, and far more likely to work. Making legal immigrant visas accessible would be even cheaper. There is no free lunch. The government has only half-assed secured the border. I saw Congress pass a bill to put up a fence only when it came time to fund it they voted not too. But I was expecting just that. People only remember them voting for the fence to be built. Not when they voted to strip the funding.

subfever -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 8:28:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave (www.jkozy.com): "The United States of America does not have anything that an anthropologist would recognize as a true society. America consists of a mere cluster of people and groups with various and often opposing beliefs who often have little tolerance for the beliefs held by the others. It has been said that Americans do not live together, they merely live side by side. These individuals and groups openly seek to promote their own interests at the expense of the interests of all." This Kozy seems like a perceptive guy to me. I'll have to check out his site.

subfever -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 8:33:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Here's a novel concept: systems should serve everyone's interests. When everyone's interests can't be served equally well, a system should strive to serve the interests of those with the most dire and fundamental needs first. Interesting. Tell us more about this system.

subfever -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 8:38:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jtodd77 I think the fundamental question to ask is "whose interests should the US immigration policy serve?" Should it serve the Democratic Party leaders'? Should it serve the Wall Street Journal's? Should it serve those of a migrant worker from Gautemala? Or so should it serve the interests of US citizens? Once upon a time, a nation's policies, ANY NATION, used to serve the interests of ITS CITIZENS, not sweat shop bosses or the Mexican government's. What a novel concept. Here's a safe bet: if the PTB truly didn't want illegal aliens here, the vast majority of illegal aliens wouldn't be here. My guess? There's a much larger agenda looming on the horizon than most people realize.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 10:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Solving the illegal immigration issue actually is fairly easy - but neither party wants to do it. All we have to do is provide a realistic alternative. That can mean a Marshall Plan of sorts for Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Guatemala, and all countries in between - something that goes far beyond the feeble steps of NAFTA. Why do I - as a US citizen - have to plan, pay for, execute and be responsible for a "Marshall Plan" for Mexico? Shouldn't the first priority of my government be the welfare of our own citizens? Resources are not infinite. Choices must be made. If it is my country, shouldn't those choices first benefit our citizens? Firm Sure, but what happens when the alternative means committing violence against a whole bunch of people?

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 10:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Here's a novel concept: systems should serve everyone's interests. When everyone's interests can't be served equally well, a system should strive to serve the interests of those with the most dire and fundamental needs first. Interesting. Tell us more about this system. Sure! It's called "don't be a dick". It starts when people decide to not be dicks to each other, and just sort of grows from there. Here in America, we have it reasonably good. We can actually drink the water. We're not getting shot at every day. Things could get a lot worse and still be far better than people have it in Mexico. So looking at it that way, it's not like these immigrants are doing anything wrong; they're doing exactly what we'd be doing, if we had had the misfortune of being born a few hundred miles south. And how much strain are they causing on the economy? 1%? 2%? I've seen figures up to 10%, but those seem a little bogus. Yeah, some people might be cheating the system. Wow. It's funny how many people cheat the stock market, yet no one ever suggests shutting down Wall Street. White-collar crime is huge compared to the drain that illegal immigration places on our economy, and yet it's barely talked about compared to "immigration reform" - because those people are powerful, and we worship power. People talk about how horrible something like amnesty would be, when the end result of amnesty sounds exactly like what they want - people paying their taxes and not being a burden to the system. If you turned all those illegal immigrants into legal immigrants, they'd be part of the system, and therefore paying their "fair share". Or, if you're obsessed about punishing them, you can keep trying and you'll never get anywhere. So it really comes down to a combination of factors, but the bottom line is "do what works" and "look out for the little guy". And, unfortunately, sometimes that means giving up on the worn-out rhetoric of "well this is my money and I work hard for it and I'll be damned if some wetback spic beaner is gonna come and take it from me!" - no matter how politely said rhetoric is re-phrased.

TheHeretic -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 10:54:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Sure, but what happens when the alternative means committing violence against a whole bunch of people? That is called a "war," Ialda. It's frequently how those "borders" that have you so confused are established. Why are you assuming that avoiding violence is some sort of ultimate value? Perhaps if you contemplated and answered the question posed earlier about uninvited strangers walking into your home, eating your food, and taking over the remote control and internet connection, you would find an avenue to appreciate the times when the use of violence becomes appropriate.

TheHeretic -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/15/2009 11:01:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth And, unfortunately, sometimes that means giving up on the worn-out rhetoric of "well this is my money and I work hard for it and I'll be damned if some wetback spic beaner is gonna come and take it from me!" - no matter how politely said rhetoric is re-phrased. Blind and baseless accusations of racism when the going gets tough... That will boost the quality of the discussion [8\|]

cadenas -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/16/2009 12:31:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas You obviously haven't been to Southern California. Here in San Diego, it's more like the Berlin Wall. http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00DAgBs9SL0st/610x.jpg http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/017obUq7cCeev/610x.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/US-Mexico_border_fence.jpg You ARE entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts. The wall stops somewhere. So they can't cross it near a major thoroughfare. They can still cross it. In Texas, the "border" consists of a dry river bed. Real secure there. Nobody ever proposed otherwise. In San Diego, it stops past Jacumba, 100 miles to the east, right where the mountains give way to the desert. There is one interruption near Tecate that I know of, where the wall ends against a mountainside and continues on the other side of the mountain. Nobody ever proposed a wall that would continue for the whole 3000+ miles. Even the much-touted border fence was only supposed to be 700 miles, and later scaled back to a whopping 370 miles because that's all we could afford. And then that wall ended up getting interrupted at a golf course in Texas http://www.alternet.org/story/77320/ owned by a politically connected man. And also at some other properties of wealthy political donors. It does go smack through the middle of the campus of the University of Texas in Brownsville. Universities aren't as important as politically-connected golf courses.

cadenas -> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens (6/16/2009 12:40:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 I would be fine with the government allowing more people into the country legally. As long as it is based on our countries needs and not what other countries want. When you come in legally you get checked out. They find out who you are and I believe they do a health check. When people come here illegally neither of those things happen. And there is no control on the amount. Exactly. That's already how it works (I have gone through the process in 2000). quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Cut the amount who enter illegally and then and only then do we raise the amount who can come here legally. According to our countries needs. You are putting the cart before the horse. The increase MUST come first simply because there is no way to cut illegal immigration. And in this case, our country's needs are dictated by the number of people who want to come. The reason current immigration quotas are so low is that we decided them based on what we thought were our needs in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 There is no reason it should take 25 years to get a legal visa. It would be good if they could get it down to 3-5 years. Gives the government time to do the checks and see if there is a need for you. It used to be 90 days, including background check. The delay isn't processing delay (well, that's part of it, too) but rather waiting for the quota. The 25 year delay simply happened because have about 25 times as many people who already filed applications as the annual quota in that category (that's actually a bit simplified; in reality it's probably more like 40 times as many, and the waiting time keeps growing, not shrinking). That's the end result of setting quotas based on "our country's needs" Nice in theory. Unworkable in practice.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875