Yes, my sister lives in a country where they can ony get socialized medicine. The doctors are not very competent. They have been keeping her sick by treating her with hormones which a good physician will not recommend. I researched and found out what is causing her illeness. thsoe doctors are refusing to have asecond opinion and my sister is suffering immense pain. She has to wait for several months before she can see a physician.
Is this what we want here? Michael Moore,. the fat white idiot wants to destroy the free market here in the US. Well, let Hillary introduce the Socialized medicine. I am sure you will regret.
Communists= Socialists= Democrats will destroy this country. If you hate capitalism, our borders are still open. You are free to move to any other communist country, perhaps Cuba. Not too far. Please do not try to change something that works. DON'T FIX SOMETHING THAT AIN'T BROKE.
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
I think that is a testament to how unafraid people are of the US justice system, which we have long been mocked for by countries like North Korea, China, Iran, etc.
Totalitarian governments all -- good moral company eh?
Ah, so we should bring back whipping, chains and hanging eh? Still won't solve why people are there, just treat the symptom. Typical knee-jerk conservative think.
As it sits right now the current laws and regulations are sentencing many people to death, and yet still they come: no matter what the punishment level is that you impose you will not deter illegal immigration because it does not address the problem, only treats the symptom.
The problem is social iniquity. You can solve that by improving the economies of other countries or by depressing the US economy ... which seems to be the current trend endorsed by the administration.
What exactly do you propose. Coming from your political affiliation, I have thus far heard only platitudes. Do you have an actual proposal for how we should handle the situation?
Gosh, nem. Perhaps what I put in the OP ... (Message 1).
Uhhh, a Kibbutz is smaller than most small towns. There is a massive disparity, that you have erroneously smuggled in, between a kibbutz and a nation the size of Cuba. There is no comparison.
Of course there is no comparison, because Cuba is not a real communist country -- it is a totalitarian oligarchy pretending to be a communist country. The disparity smuggled in is the reactionary equation of this type of dictatorship with communism over the last 50 plus years (McCarthyism).
There has been no real communist nation. Not one. You are confusing the theoretical with the McCarthyist back-definition based on what the USSR actually was (as most people do) -- see
The first definition is what communism would really involve. The second is based on the example of the USSR and does not represent what real (per Marx) communism would involve.
The Kibbutz is true to the first definition, Cuba relates to the second definition. As I said, it depends on your definition of communism, and you failed to take that into consideration, and thus you equivocated between the two different definitions.
Now I personally don't have any problem with the first definition being used by a country that wants to try such, but I DO have a problem with a totalitarian oligarchy type of government no matter what they happen to call themselves: I can separate the reality from the image.
That doesn't mean I would like to live there -- that implication by inkorrekt in Message 73 would be based on another reactionary knee-jerk type talking point straw man portrayal of liberal positions as communist (definition 2). Gotta have those bogeymen to scare the kids instead of using rationality and critical thinking eh?
Who benefits from truly free health care are those who are unemployed by choice, by living off of the system designed to help them, not coddle them. But somebody has to pay for his/her doctors visit. And while the lazy reap the benefits, the hard working (wo)man is enabling the socially lecherous.
Who really benefits is everyone. You seem to forget in your equation the social cost of not treating the poor and the young and the elderly that cannot afford your personal premium. Some of this is already covered by current programs, some of them result in emergency room visits at extra cost by people who cannot pay and whose cost gets passed on to you -- by the hospitals -- through your premium. You need to add up all the costs of health care, not just include your personal visible cost and claim it covers only you.
My premium is far less than I would be paying in taxes under a Socialist system. ... they pay over half of their paycheck to afford the "free" healthcare.
So you are comparing your individual cost for only only your health care premium (while excluding tax for medicare, medicaid etc programs) to the total tax in socialist countries?
quote:With so many social services in effect, and a virtual absence of poverty, Sweden's personal income taxes are the highest in the world. In 2002, personal income tax rates, the combination of state and local rates, were 31% on the first increment of taxable income up to 232,600 Krona (about $173,065); 51% on the next increment up to 374,000 Krona (about $278,000); and 56% on increments of income above 374,000 Krona. Personal deductions vary between 8,600 and 18,100 Krona ($6,364 and $13, 400). A health tax is levied at 1.5%. There is also a real estate tax.
Note that only 1.5% is the health tax. And I also don't count 31% as "over half of their paycheck" for all those earning under $173,065, which I would consider outside normal "middle class" income.
quote:For example, if you define middle-class households as those with incomes ranging around the national average, you find that the share with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 in 1994 dollars shrank from 38 percent in 1970 to 30 percent in 1994. At the same time, the number of such households grew from about 25 million to 30 million. A broader definition of the middle class as households with incomes of $15,000 to $75,000 in 1994 yields similar results. With this definition, the middle class shrank to 64 percent of all households in 1994 from 70 percent in 1970.
Thus ALL middle class people would only pay 31% under the Swedish tax.
The rest of the Swedish tax rate pays for things like the elimination of poverty, and this compares to the US tax rates (for one person) of:
If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is: $0 $7,550 10% of the amount over $0 $7,550 $30,650 $755 +15% of amount <7,550 $30,650 $74,200 $4,220.00 +25% of amount <30,650 $74,200 $154,800 $15,107.50 +28% of amount <74,200 $154,800 $336,550 $37,675.50 +33% of amount <154,800 $336,550 no limit $97,653.00 +35% of amount <336,550
(edited to conserve space)
All but the last would be lumped into the first category in Sweden, so you need to find the average tax of all incomes in those categories to be able to honestly compare total tax rates. I'm betting most middle class adults make it into the $4,220.00+25% category (especially if we are talking about the "middle class" category per above).
Meanwhile the poverty rate in the US is on of the highest in the developed countries -- perhaps there is a connection between poverty and social problems rather than between immigration and social problems eh?
quote:Currently roughly 13% of the US population fall below the federal poverty threshold. There is however some controversy regarding the federal poverty line, arguing that it either understates or overstates the problem of poverty. The poverty rate in the United States is one of the highest among the post-industrialized developed world.[4]
The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period. The 2006 poverty rate was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines[10] which are illustrated in the table below.
Note that for one person the current poverty level income is $9,800, above the first cut on the tax table.
The social cost of poverty is also born by those of us earning incomes -- not least of which is the cost of criminal behavior, all those police and security and prison etc costs. You need to calculate this total cost when comparing income tax rates.
An economy is made by people moving money, not possession of it. The more people moving money and the more money being moved, the better the economy is -- regardless of the source of the money, so treating people as people and providing a minimum standard of living for everyone will benefit those in the production economy.
Now I happen to think that a lot of crime in the US is due to the high numbers of people living near and below the poverty level, so that eliminating this problem would mean also taking care of much of the crime problem.
ALL human beings are entitled to certain unalienable rights, whether they are citizens or illegal immigrants. They are entitled to health services here, food, shelter, etc, regardless of race, sex, creed, religious affiliations, nationality, etc, before they deported.
That illustrious motto does not mean that non-citizens are entitled to every single right as the citizen is. Perhaps you need to visit a hostile foreign country and then complain about America's generosity.
Getting back to the topic ... the point of "that illustrious motto" is that all people are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, all people are entitled to be "american" in their beliefs and ideals and hopes.
The question is how can we really morally draw a line between people who happen to be born outside the US from those that happen to be born in the US? What makes them less valuable than someone living below the poverty line in slums of Chicago and New York and the like? Wasn't that the reasoning behind another "illustrious motto" -- on the Statue of Liberty? (See Message 1 for quote).
There is an America of the Mind that exists around the world, that is bigger than the geographic US, no matter what laws we geographically, hereditarily lucky ones happen to want to pass, and people are free to belong to -- be citizens of -- that America, whether we like it or not.
Well, someone has to pay for these welfare services. Who is this? The American Tax payer. I am paying for the services for illegal immigrants. I have been denied emergency services. But, i have been charged. Enough is enough. People break the laws and sneak into another country and demand all the benefits. Thank God, the Bush-MCKennedy Amnesty was shot down. Otherwise, our deficit will go up by another 3 TRILLION dollars.Enough is enough. Mexico must take care of its own poor. American Tax payer can no longer be burdened with the cost of welfare for the illegals. Do you know how many hospitals are closing because of the illegals? Enough is enough.
People break the laws and sneak into another country and demand all the benefits.
So you don't think that employers using illegal immigrants are a problem? Seems to me they are the ones responsible for proper taxation not being collected from such wages.
Of course anyone being paid WITH income tax deductions being made ARE paying the same as US citizens, so your only gripe is those unscrupulous US Citizens that hire illegals and don't deduct income taxes.
Legally it is the responsibility of the employer not the employee to collect taxes eh?
Otherwise, our deficit will go up by another 3 TRILLION dollars.Enough is enough. Mexico must take care of its own poor. American Tax payer can no longer be burdened with the cost of welfare for the illegals. Do you know how many hospitals are closing because of the illegals? Enough is enough.
Unsubstantiated hyperbole. More reactionary talking-point straw man arguments. Please try a real argument.
so we should bring back whipping, chains and hanging eh?
Did I say that? All I said was that people don't fear the American justice system because we're a very nice nation comparatively. Your point seemed be nothing other than saying how mean and terrible theUnited States is.
You're free to go whenever you'd like.
As it sits right now the current laws and regulations are sentencing many people to death, and yet still they come
RAZD, no one has been sentenced to death for illegally crossing the border. You don't honestly believe that, do you?
The problem is social iniquity. You can solve that by improving the economies of other countries or by depressing the US economy ... which seems to be the current trend endorsed by the administration.
America is trying to get as many nations as stable as possible in a roundabout way, because, yes, what happens overseas will indirectly affect us. The problem is, this is what the US is doing now in Iraq. This is what they tried to do in Vietnam. The problem is that every time it starts to stabilize, radical extremists blow up the schools, police stations, factories that we built.
I suggest such a program be resurrected, that it be combined with welfare reform and immigration, and also include education to a high school level for those who need it (including English composition and speaking), with these conditions:
that it be optional for any US citizen,
that it specifically be open to those US citizens who have run out of unemployment and welfare options,
that it be mandatory for all new immigrants,
that any immigrants convicted of a crime (more than a misdemeanor) be deported,
that it include some form of "national service" similar to the CCC
such "national service" could include what is currently called the "Guest Worker Program"
that graduation from the system would mean passing the civic, language, etcetera tests required for Citizenship
that citizenship for new immigrants would be dependent on graduation
the length of stay in the system for immigrants would depend on ability to pass tests at grade levels leading up to high school equivalence (GED)
length of stay for US citizens would be voluntary on an annual basis (either re-up or leave)
payment would be fixed ($15 per day? for "luxuries") plus room and board, child care and basic medical services
This would provide a safety-net for US citizens as well as a work-to-citizenship program for immigrants.
What you've outlined is almost verbatim the criteria of entering here legally. Here's the problem, RAZD. The people that come here illegally, don't give a whit about all of that. Why are they going to go through this program if they can avoid it altogether like many of them have been doing en mass since the 1960's?
Think about it. We're talking about illegal immigrants, not legal ones.
So, you want to deport the one's who've committed felonies, which is a fantastic idea that I'm all for, however, you still run in to the problem that you yourself just said we'd face-- that they are still going to come no matter what, and that we are just treating the symptoms and not the actual problem.
Do you see how that makes no sense?
Therefore, until the lion lays down with the lamb, enforcement is the only thing that will ameliorate this situation.
Cuba is not a real communist country -- it is a totalitarian oligarchy pretending to be a communist country. The disparity smuggled in is the reactionary equation of this type of dictatorship with communism over the last 50 plus years (McCarthyism).
I can assure you that Cuba is a REAL Communist state. You only want to think differently because you believe in the utopian ideal that it has long promised-- a heaven on earth of sorts. The reality is that communism fails because it overlooks one profound element-- the human condition.
Communism's greatest challenge is that it is incompatible with human behavior-- namely, our predilection for sin.
There has been no real communist nation. Not one.
And there never will be, RAZD. That's the whole point!
You seem to forget in your equation the social cost of not treating the poor and the young and the elderly that cannot afford your personal premium. Some of this is already covered by current programs
RAZD, I've worked in two hospitals where the homeless came in on a daily basis. They will always be treated, regardless of their monetary situation, because it is inhumane to throw somebody out on the street and left to rot. Even when they, literally, came in every single night after binge drinking. That was their lifestyle.
They go out and have a gay old time boozing up with their friends. When they got smashed, they would call an ambulance and feign diabetic shock because diabetes and intoxication look the same.
What you are advocating would enable them to do this with that money that you worked for. Well, guess what? That's theft. These are thieves. So send these repeat offenders to prison where they can benefit socialist healthcare at the expense of the taxpayer. They will pay what they owe in time served. With any hope, they will clean up there act and live a productive life, instead of a lecherous one.
If there are no consequences, they will live this life indefinitely. If they are placed in a situation where they are forced to change, there is a good chance that they will. Sometimes we need to get spanked by life in order to learn valuable lessons.
So you are comparing your individual cost for only only your health care premium (while excluding tax for medicare, medicaid etc programs) to the total tax in socialist countries?
No, I'm comparing what I pay as a premium for my healthcare, as opposed to what the average Socialist pays for theirs in taxes. Mine is way less, and I don't have to wait extraordinary amounts of time to get properly treated. There is a waiting list in many of these nations for critical surgeries. Well, screw that. If I have a life-threatening emergency, I want to be treated immediately.
I am no advocate for the medicare system. That system is broken, without question. But Medicare is not the only option.
Note that only 1.5% is the health tax. And I also don't count 31% as "over half of their paycheck" for all those earning under $173,065, which I would consider outside normal "middle class" income.
"For much of the 20th century, Sweden had a single-payer system of health care in which the government paid almost all health care costs. Like other nations with a single-payer system, Sweden has had to deal with the problem of ever-growing health care expenses causing a strain on government budgets. It has dealt with this problem by rationing health care - instituting waiting lists for medical appointments and surgery...
Sweden spent about 9.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, which is slightly above the average for nations that belong to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.4 The largest share of funding for the Swedish health care system comes from taxes. Both county and municipal governments have broad authority to levy income taxes. Since 90 percent of county revenues are expended on health care, a breakdown of the sources of county revenue give a roughly accurate picture of the revenue sources for health care provided by county councils.5 In 2003, 72 percent of the revenues for county councils came from taxes, while 18 percent came from grants from the national government, three percent came from user-fees, and the remaining seven percent came from other sources.6 Municipal government generated about 69 percent of their revenues from local taxes in 2003, and 20 percent of their revenues are spent on health care.7
Patients in Sweden pay user fees (similar to co-payments in the United States) that are set by county councils. The fee for seeing a primary care physician varies from 11 to 17 kronas (the Swedish unit of currency; $1 U.S. equals about 6.90 kronas), while the fee for seeing a specialist ranges from 22 to 33 kronas. While county councils have discretion in setting user fees, the national government limits the amount of total user fees paid per patient at 100 kronas annually for physician and specialist visits. The maximum user fee for hospital care is nine kronas per day...
Conclusion
While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world... When the United States chooses to reform its health care system, reform should lead to improvement. Reforming along the lines of Sweden would only make our system worse." -David Hogberg
Meanwhile the poverty rate in the US is on of the highest in the developed countries -- perhaps there is a connection between poverty and social problems rather than between immigration and social problems eh?
The term "poverty" is often ambiguous because it usually means people that have less money than well off people, rather than what it is supposed to mean, which is people who do not have enough monetary support for basic amenities. For the sake of clarity and continuity, could you define poverty so that we are operating under the same definition.
Oh, wait, your Wiki article addresses the very problem I was thinking:
quote::Currently roughly 13% of the US population fall below the federal poverty threshold. There is however some controversy regarding the federal poverty line, arguing that it either understates or overstates the problem of poverty. The poverty rate in the United States is one of the highest among the post-industrialized developed world.
The social cost of poverty is also born by those of us earning incomes -- not least of which is the cost of criminal behavior
RAZD, crime has nothing to do with poverty itself, and everything to do with sociology. The sociology of the underclass is not underscored because they are poor. Rather, they are often poor because of their social disposition.
People don't generally steal loaves of bread to feed their kids. Rather, they steal cars to feed their drug addictions, rather than feeding their kids. Stealing a loaf of bread would at least be understandable.
Now I happen to think that a lot of crime in the US is due to the high numbers of people living near and below the poverty level, so that eliminating this problem would mean also taking care of much of the crime problem.
You don't just hand people money and all of a sudden their morals change. Or, were you not aware that the mafia is loaded?
You fix the problem at the root, which is their sin, and out of it will come prosperity.
Getting back to the topic ...
Yeah, good idea. In fact, feel free to write a response. I will certainly read it. But after backtracking our conversation, I see us drifting way OT. If you do decide to respond to me about anything other than the title, I'm not going to respond. I trust that you understand. And I apologize for my part in drifting OT.
The question is how can we really morally draw a line between people who happen to be born outside the US from those that happen to be born in the US? What makes them less valuable than someone living below the poverty line in slums of Chicago and New York and the like?
In my line of work, there are a lot people who come to the US to escape from tyranny and oppression. Much of their stories are heartrending. Of course I can sympathize with them. Cripes, my own brother-in-law's family came from Cuba to escape Castro's dictatorship. Under those conditions, we should try and accommodate them as best we can. But, there is a line that needs to be drawn.
There are only so many jobs available, right? You say you want to get rid of poverty-- obviously a very admirable trait. However, its like a boat that has a certain capacity. If you just allow every one to come onboard, we all will sink.
Extrapolate the metaphor to the US economy. The economy can't sustain large migrations without suffering huge consequences. If the US economy goes under, largely due to the influx of illegal immigrants, then their travel here was in vain, right? Because now they're poor, we're poor, and the world will be poorer too. Because what affects US economy will effect global economy.
So, where then should the line be drawn? We need real reform. We both want real reform, judging by your post. I think we just see two different policies in achieving that.
Hopefully we can continue to brain storm in order to come up with a viable solution.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
Dude, you're preaching to the choir here... It sounds as if we both want Vicente Fox to start taking care of his own people, and that Bush needs to stop trying to play both sides of the coin.
Did you know that about almost a year ago there was a standoff between the Border Patrol and a mechanized division of the Mexican Army inside the US? The Mexican army was helping drug runners smuggle narcotics over the border.
Am I supposed to believe that Fox knew nothing of this? Yeah, right... And Bush simply swept it under the rug as if it never happened.
Do you have any idea what kind of firestorm would ensue if the US army was in Mexico, even if they weren't aiding drug dealers? Holy cow, you'd have the liberals up at arms in a nanosecond.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
Just the points related to the topic. Others you can pursue on a new thread, but I just note that nothing you said really refuted my previous post (31% is still not half and it is the total tax rate, real communism has only existed in communes). I am going to apply some of your comments regarding people behavior to the immigrant issue (essentially out of context, but justified by your attitude towards people).
RAZD, no one has been sentenced to death for illegally crossing the border. You don't honestly believe that, do you?
People are dying in the desert, Nem. They are risking crossing even with the knowledge that it may result in death. US policy is making them take that choice.
What you've outlined is almost verbatim the criteria of entering here legally. ... We're talking about illegal immigrants, not legal ones.
What your missing is that this program would include elimination of jobs for non-legals: it would provide the labor that US employers currently using illegals get at a (subsidized) rate that would be attractive to such employers. THAT is not "verbatim" in the current program.
The problem is fueled by US employers using illegal workers. If you try to eliminate that and don't replace that work force you won't solve the problem.
... that they are still going to come no matter what, and that we are just treating the symptoms and not the actual problem.
Which is why you treat the problem -- employers using illegal workers -- not the symptom -- illegal workers. Without a job they have no reason to stay.
... greatest challenge is that it is incompatible with human behavior-- namely, our predilection for sin.
So I guess we better not try to deal with any problems then. Just put people in prison? It must be nice to live in a black and white world and have a convenient excuse for other people doing bad so you don't have to look for real reasons why people do bad.
If there are no consequences, they will live this life indefinitely. If they are placed in a situation where they are forced to change, there is a good chance that they will. Sometimes we need to get spanked by life in order to learn valuable lessons.
Who are you to judge how another should live their life? What brought them to that life nem? Do you think that was a choice?
(Side note: you do realize that hospitals get reduced tax rates for dealing with charity situations so each one should have a budget for it)
The term "poverty" is often ambiguous because it usually means people that have less money than well off people, rather than what it is supposed to mean, which is people who do not have enough monetary support for basic amenities. For the sake of clarity and continuity, could you define poverty so that we are operating under the same definition.
Oh, wait, your Wiki article addresses the very problem I was thinking:
RAZD, crime has nothing to do with poverty itself, and everything to do with sociology. The sociology of the underclass is not underscored because they are poor. Rather, they are often poor because of their social disposition.
Poverty is the beginning problem -- it is why illegals cross the border, why some turn to crime and drugs, why some become street drunks, and yes it means not being able to provide basic amenities. People aren't born into a "social disposition" but they are born into poverty, whether here or in other countries. People don't choose to be in poverty nem. It is a world problem and ignoring it (or using excuses like it's their "social disposition" -- they want to be poor -- to ignore it) won't make it go away.
You fix the problem at the root, which is their sin, and out of it will come prosperity.
Another excuse for failing to deal with the problem. It's all their fault eh?
There are only so many jobs available, right? You say you want to get rid of poverty-- obviously a very admirable trait. However, its like a boat that has a certain capacity. If you just allow every one to come onboard, we all will sink.
Extrapolate the metaphor to the US economy. The economy can't sustain large migrations without suffering huge consequences.
An economy is made by people working and exchanging money. The US economy is not a fixed entity, but capable of growth to match the growth in the number of people. That is one of the things that fueled American prosperity in the past -- immigration means more jobs can be created because there are more people to do them. The number of jobs is not limited.
quote:RAZD, no one has been sentenced to death for illegally crossing the border. You don't honestly believe that, do you?
People are dying in the desert, Nem. They are risking crossing even with the knowledge that it may result in death. US policy is making them take that choice.
What!?!?
You are blaming US policy for attempting to secure its borders (which EVERY nation does, btw) instead of having people not trekking out in to the desert? That's absurd. Would you say the same thing for an American trekking in to the desert to reach Mexico, only to have them either die or be deported?
Did you know that it is illegal in Mexico for a foreigner to by waterfront property? Only Mexicans can purchase waterfront property in Mexico. Given the overwhelming generosity of this nation accommodating people's of all cultures, its a slap in the face to have the Mexican government turn around and be hypocritical.
Imagine your outrage is only Americans could purchase waterfront property in America.
What your missing is that this program would include elimination of jobs for non-legals: it would provide the labor that US employers currently using illegals get at a (subsidized) rate that would be attractive to such employers. THAT is not "verbatim" in the current program.
Look at the unemployment rate. Americans should be entitled to work in their own nation, because the sole job of the Federal government is to protect its citizens. If you were to implement the policy you desire so that its attractive enough for immigrants to want to do it, how many millions of people do you think would make a mass migration? You want to talk about people dying? No nation can sustain that large of a migration simultaneously. It benefits no one. Not the current citizens, not the immigrants seeking to come here, no one.
Which is why you treat the problem -- employers using illegal workers -- not the symptom -- illegal workers. Without a job they have no reason to stay.
I fully agree! I'm all for harsh punishment against employers that illegally hire aliens only to turn around and pay them under a living wage.
quote:greatest challenge is that it is incompatible with human behavior-- namely, our predilection for sin.
So I guess we better not try to deal with any problems then. Just put people in prison? It must be nice to live in a black and white world and have a convenient excuse for other people doing bad so you don't have to look for real reasons why people do bad.
If you can't follow the laws of the land, any land, then you go to prison. We already know why people commit crimes. They want to gain something nefariously.
quote:If there are no consequences, they will live this life indefinitely. If they are placed in a situation where they are forced to change, there is a good chance that they will. Sometimes we need to get spanked by life in order to learn valuable lessons.
Who are you to judge how another should live their life? What brought them to that life nem? Do you think that was a choice?
RAZD, there are countless people who live this way as a lifestyle. Don't think that every person you see on the street is destitute because the man crushed them. There are many people who fall on hard times unavoidably. And those are sad stories. But it doesn't undermine the fact that many people want to live a life free of responsibility.
If I can work for minimum wage doing some really crappy jobs, so can those of able body. You can't mollycoddle everyone and expect them to rise out of their funk.
People don't choose to be in poverty nem. It is a world problem and ignoring it (or using excuses like it's their "social disposition" -- they want to be poor -- to ignore it) won't make it go away.
Throwing money at them won't fix the problem. The problem of crime isn't a lack of money, its a lack of morals. I am aware that many illegal immigrants just want to provide amenities for their families. There are countless good men and women streaking across the border to survive. I understand that. Be we have poor people in THIS country-- some by choice, some by circumstance.
Aside from which, come here legally. By allowing people to come here illegally, without facing repercussions, you just slapped the people in the face that have enough respect for the country to do so illegally. You are making it so that crime pays. Well, what about the immigrant who comes here legally? Are you not forsaking them?
quote:You fix the problem at the root, which is their sin, and out of it will come prosperity.
Another excuse for failing to deal with the problem. It's all their fault eh?
For those that choose to commit crime???? Yeah, absolutely. You can't just say, I grew up impoverished, therefore, I'm allowed to resort to crime. It doesn't work that way.
An economy is made by people working and exchanging money. The US economy is not a fixed entity, but capable of growth to match the growth in the number of people.
Then why isn't it matching right now? If there are boatloads of jobs, then there only two inescapable conclusions to draw from. Either people are lazy and would rather take a socialist handout, or there really aren't enough jobs.
What kind of jobs are you going to invent for millions of people coming across the border simultaneously? Give me an estimate for how many people you think would come across the border in one years time if we opened our borders? Then tell me where they are going to work...
No offense, but you live in Rhode Island. I don't think you can fully appreciate the circumstance we have in South Florida, California, Arizona, etc. Perhaps if you saw the condition firsthand, you might be less inclined to believe that an unrestrained border would solve every one's problem.
Lastly, I want to add that you have a very beautiful, idealized dream where every one can be prosperous. I can't fault you for that. I can't say that you're a jerk for wanting it. I think everyone wants that. What I do think you are, at least in this instance, is naive and foolish. But at least I can with assurance say that your heart is in the right place. I can't fault you for that.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
Let's see if I can simplify the questions for you.
You are blaming US policy for attempting to secure its borders (which EVERY nation does, btw) instead of having people not trekking out in to the desert? That's absurd. Would you say the same thing for an American trekking in to the desert to reach Mexico, only to have them either die or be deported?
A policy that builds walls instead of attacks the problem is responsible for the result of the walls because they have not dealt with the problem.
There is no wall between the US and Canada, and there is no need for one.
Did you know that it is illegal in Mexico for ...
The morality of what the US does is entirely independent of what other countries do, just like the morality of what you do is entirely independent of the morality of what I do. The question is about the morality of US policy with regard to immigration as a whole.
Look at the unemployment rate. Americans should be entitled to work in their own nation, ...
... for a living wage with dignity. Where necessary the government needs to enforce standards, because one of the duties of government is to protect those less able to protect themselves. When necessary the government can create work and encourage enterprise. This is ostensibly the reason we have laws regarding banks and businesses.
There is no moral reason why those who benefit most from the economy that this nation provides pay user fees to support the country that makes that economy available, including providing a basic level of living for those who do not benefit from the economy. A moral society takes care of it's own.
RAZD, there are countless people who live this way as a lifestyle. Don't think that every person you see on the street is destitute because the man crushed them. There are many people who fall on hard times unavoidably.
Existing US citizens. Not illegal immigrants. Thus dealing with the problems of basic human dignity, basic levels of living, crime, drugs, etcetera is independent of the problem of illegal immigrants. There is no reason that the US cannot provide a basic level standard of living for the elderly, the young, military veterans and those who, for a variety of reasons from mental to social disabilities, cannot work to your standards.
You seem to think that people provided a basic level standard of living would not be contributing to society or the economy.
Lastly, I want to add that you have a very beautiful, idealized dream where every one can be prosperous.
No, not prosperous, just adequate to live with basic human dignity. Guarantee a basic minimum standard of living and let anyone add to that with work of their choice. There would be no need for a minimum wage, but wages would have to be attractive compared to the work to be done. I happen to think this would benefit small companies and start up enterprises and fuel the growth of the economy.
No offense, but you live in Rhode Island. I don't think you can fully appreciate the circumstance we have in South Florida, California, Arizona, etc.
I've lived in many more places from Mississippi to Maine to British Columbia, and I've been to 46 of the 50 states. People are people: that is the basic issue here.
Can you tell me why it is moral and just to treat 'Person A' different from 'Person B' when the only difference is an accident of birth? (and isn't that the basic definition of discrimination and bigotry?)
A policy that builds walls instead of attacks the problem is responsible for the result of the walls because they have not dealt with the problem.
First off, there is one wall along the vast expanse of the Mexican-American border and its 90 miles long. It was President Clinton that had it built, btw.
Secondly, even if there was a wall, it sounds as if you are overlooking why a wall would be built to begin with. You aren't addressing the problem-- which is what an influx would do to the economy.
Why do you think so many people, including the leaders of every nation, want to secure their borders? Surely they have sensible reasons for doing so.
There is no wall between the US and Canada, and there is no need for one.
You're right. There is no need for one because we don't have an immigration problem with Canada. In the unlikely event that Canadians start streaming across the border en masse, I'm pretty sure the heads of state would begin to consider erecting a wall.
The morality of what the US does is entirely independent of what other countries do, just like the morality of what you do is entirely independent of the morality of what I do. The question is about the morality of US policy with regard to immigration as a whole.
Which is generous in comparison! The US has some of the most liberal immigration policies of all the nations. It seems that you just won't be satisfied until you hand over the keys of the kingdom.
Are you advocating a totally free border? If so, don't you think that presents a problem with groups, such as Al Qaeda, posing as Mexican immigrants to infiltrate the country?
one of the duties of government is to protect those less able to protect themselves. When necessary the government can create work and encourage enterprise.
If the government could sort of whimsically create new jobs, now would be the time to do it. I can only think of a handful. The government created the Saturn auto company, and the biggest creation of new jobs was for the Department of Homeland Security. Other than that, what jobs are they going to create in Stinkwater, Florida or Desertville, Arizona?
A moral society takes care of it's own.
Yes, its own. Not the neighborhood kids. The neighborhood kids have their own parents who needs to support them. I'm just wondering why it is that you are refusing to place any blame on the Mexican government when it seems transparent that the main issue lies with them.
dealing with the problems of basic human dignity, basic levels of living, crime, drugs, etcetera is independent of the problem of illegal immigrants. There is no reason that the US cannot provide a basic level standard of living for the elderly, the young, military veterans and those who, for a variety of reasons from mental to social disabilities, cannot work to your standards.
The US has laws and allotments for all of these groups. My sister-in-law is deaf. She has a reasonable disability. For that disability, she is compensated SSI for the rest of her natural life. But at the same time, she is chronically lazy. Aside from giving her SSI and help find her work, what should the government do for someone like her who won't help herself?
No, not prosperous, just adequate to live with basic human dignity. Guarantee a basic minimum standard of living
You mean pay someone whether or not they actually work? How would that prosper anyone?
Can you tell me why it is moral and just to treat 'Person A' different from 'Person B' when the only difference is an accident of birth? (and isn't that the basic definition of discrimination and bigotry?)
If you treat someone different simply because of their race, of course, that's racism. If you refuse to treat someone in a hospital simply because they are not here legally, yes, that's discrimination. Expecting someone to become a citizen through legal channels does not qualify. They either need to go back home or go through the legal channels.
There are countless immigrants who obtain visas legally. It is not an easy process. Don't you think that it's a slap in the face to have the illegal immigrant more rights than the legal one? What does that say about our justice system?
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
First off, there is one wall along the vast expanse of the Mexican-American border and its 90 miles long. It was President Clinton that had it built, btw.
Somehow I doubt that Clinton personally built any 90 mile wall, I think he must have had help from Congress. Now there is supposed to be a 700 mile wall. Perhaps it is time to build bridges instead of walls, seeing how it would be cheaper and all.
What this means is that the money spent for a wall would be better spent improving the economy of the border so that the supply/demand equation is addressed. You seem to want to lose the 'war' on illegal immigration the same way that one wants to lose the 'war' on drugs. It seems irrational that any discussion refuses to address demand.
Secondly, even if there was a wall, it sounds as if you are overlooking why a wall would be built to begin with. You aren't addressing the problem-- which is what an influx would do to the economy.
Exactly what it is doing now, people doing jobs that snooty Americans are too good to do.
Why do you think so many people, including the leaders of every nation, want to secure their borders? Surely they have sensible reasons for doing so.
The only borders anywhere as long as the US border with either Canada or Mexico are those of Russia or China. Are you suggesting we imitate their tactics and make such immigration less desirable by offering bullets instead of bread?
NJ writes:
You're right. There is no need for one because we don't have an immigration problem with Canada. In the unlikely event that Canadians start streaming across the border en masse, I'm pretty sure the heads of state would begin to consider erecting a wall.
Actually if the people here insist on continuing to elect politicians who support torture, disrespect the Constitution, attack science and technology to 'mollify' the religious fanatics and impoverish the future of their own children, it may be Canada that has to erect a wall to prevent a mass exodus from this nation.
Are you advocating a totally free border? If so, don't you think that presents a problem with groups, such as Al Qaeda, posing as Mexican immigrants to infiltrate the country?
Yes it does, that's why there should be a compromise between the need for work and the source of workers. It would be better to create a system by which such need and supply may be matched to the obvious needs of both sides rather than the continuous posturing of politicians.
As I have said before, if this nation wants to stop illegal immigration they have two options, either create a legal route to address the supply/demand problem or all the rednecks can get off their fat ass and pick the fruit, clean the toilets, and roof the houses.
If the government could sort of whimsically create new jobs, now would be the time to do it. I can only think of a handful. The government created the Saturn auto company, and the biggest creation of new jobs was for the Department of Homeland Security. Other than that, what jobs are they going to create in Stinkwater, Florida or Desertville, Arizona?
There are plenty of jobs here, oil and windmills, we have trouble getting students to go to college because the money is so good outside. So I somewhat repeat, stop whining and start working or learning.
Yes, its own. Not the neighborhood kids. The neighborhood kids have their own parents who needs to support them. I'm just wondering why it is that you are refusing to place any blame on the Mexican government when it seems transparent that the main issue lies with them.
Well, I guess all the confederates who so loved this nation they revolted against it could all go on some moral crusade to conquer Mexico as they have chosen to in Iraq.
Or would it be like everyone who tried to conquer China, they got absorbed? As for me rock and roll, I like real Mexican food, Catholics, brunettes, and the Spanish language. Also, no death penalty . Maybe the US would be improved by such an invasion (as it already has in both directions).
he US has laws and allotments for all of these groups. My sister-in-law is deaf. She has a reasonable disability. For that disability, she is compensated SSI for the rest of her natural life. But at the same time, she is chronically lazy. Aside from giving her SSI and help find her work, what should the government do for someone like her who won't help herself?
Have her pick fruit?
You mean pay someone whether or not they actually work? How would that prosper anyone?
What like children or retirees? Do you have some kind of ethical code from Sparta or Nietzsche?
If you treat someone different simply because of their race, of course, that's racism. If you refuse to treat someone in a hospital simply because they are not here legally, yes, that's discrimination. Expecting someone to become a citizen through legal channels does not qualify. They either need to go back home or go through the legal channels.
There are countless immigrants who obtain visas legally. It is not an easy process. Don't you think that it's a slap in the face to have the illegal immigrant more rights than the legal one? What does that say about our justice system?
I agree completely. So I hope in 2008 you vote for solutions instead of the typical 'playing of the race card.'
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2