Our government is refusing to enforce the laws. That is the problem.President Bush has failed to fulfill his constitutional obligations to protect citizens of his own country from invasion by 30 million people.
With the highest rate of incarceration of any developed nation -- to the point of competing (unfavorably) with totalitarian countries -- I have to wonder why you think there is less enforcement in the US than in other countries AND where you would consider putting new inmates. Concentration camps?
Solution to the problem is nothing but enforcement.
Your "solution" is a fascist dystopia that is dysfunctional and counterproductive, not surprising seeing as this kind of thinking has produced the failed "war" on drugs that has resulted in the high rates of incarceration while doing nothing to stem the drug problem. It will be equally dysfunctional and unproductive of results against immigration.
Bees only flock where there is honey. If there is no honey, bees will leave the flowers.
Actually bees flock to nectar, from which they make honey, and without the bees there would be no honey and no fertilized flowers. Cut off the bees and you ruin the honey-flower economy. Not only did you misrepresent the facts in your analogy but you got it all wrong.
Enacting and enforcing tough anti-immigration laws also does not eliminate the supply of "honey" -- rather it tries to stop the bees in mid-flight. Your poorly devised analogy fails to even represent your position.
Communism has never worked anywhere.
Depends on your definitions. What do you define as "Communism"? -- the totalitarian oligarchies of the USSR? On the other hand communes like the kibbutz have been successful.
It will never work here either. Alright go ahead and elect Hillary.
Ah, you don't really mean communism, you mean socialism. You need to stop reading conservative knee-jerk talking points and looking at reality.
Socialism mixed with democracy is very successful in several countries and has resulted in many of them providing full medical coverage for all their citizens for less per capita cost than the failed medical care in this country.
But hey, if you enjoy spending two to three times what your medical costs SHOULD be then by all means continue to vote for your reactionary candidate of choice, rather than one that is more progressive.
Your dream will be realized at the cost of destruction of Free America.
The destruction of really free America has been furthered by the current neocon administration more than any other. Both by infractions made on American freedoms and by rewarding megacorporations -- that care not one whit about people but only about profit -- with tax breaks, deregulation and other benefits.
You want to know where the middle class went? It was sold to China at Wallmart. It was outsourced to India. It was bought out by hostile takeovers of productive companies that cared about employees because they didn't produce enough profit.
And this still doesn't solve the problem of immigration ... tell me: what part of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." only applies to citizens? The world is a single unit on which nations are only temporary inhabitants. The "solution" to immigration problems will necessarily be global and not local.
Enjoy.
ps -- Hillary is not my first, second or third choice. You need to stop with knee jerk responses to conservative talking-point straw-men and reply to the arguments made instead.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Generous in comparison IS NOT THE QUESTION
REPEAT: The question is about the morality of US policy with regard to immigration as a whole. 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?
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?
LOL never forget to bring up terrorism to justify closing the mexican border when that was not the way they got here. Your position must be weak if you appeal to consequences (a logical fallacy) and fear mongering. The US did not become great by hiding from fear.
Immigration has nothing to do with terrorism. The question is how we treat ALL those who want to become Americans.
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.
Compare your recent administration with the Clinton administration. It didn't create jobs but an atmosphere where jobs flourished. The current administration gave away billions of dollars in tax refunds - supposedly to stimulate the economy - with no accounting for where and how those funds were actually spent to stimulate the economy. Give away the same amount in equal amounts to every taxpayer and see what the difference is ... because the economy is the movement of money not the putting of money in rich pockets.
If you are serious about creating jobs you do what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did with the New Deal (as mentioned in Message 1 btw, you know part of the OP for this thread?)
You mean pay someone whether or not they actually work? How would that prosper anyone?
We are already paying for them. It's a matter of dignity. Because a moral society takes care of it's own.
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?
That it is unnecessarily convoluted? That it makes things more difficult than necessary? That it doesn't give everyone a fair chance?
I repeat: any immigration policy that discriminates between individuals violates these American concepts of equality and rights, most especially the right to the pursuit of happiness.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
The US was built on immigration without restrictions. It is what made America great.
Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of.
Have you checked an atlas lately? Or do you just enjoy being wrong?
1. They already have the option to come here legally.
Obviously they aren't filling the jobs for immigrants with the legal applicants, or there wouldn't be such an easy market for illegals to find work.
The "demand" for what? Supply and demand is supposed to be reciprocal, not one sided. What do we gain by letting mass immigrants flow through the border?
Workers and consumers.
We would, except that getting her to breath of her own volition, let alone actually work, is like pulling teeth.
I really don't see any connection between your sister in law and the immigration problem. None. I also don't see any connection between US citizens not working by their own volition and the immigration problem.
These are people that want to work, and are willing to put up with considerable hardship to do so. Seems to me they should be welcome additions.
we don't have a right to any pursuit of happiness. it's a statement in the declaration of independence which is not a government document and has nothing to do with the constitution or any guarantee of rights.
You are free to believe that. Btw, did you read the OP?
I suggest you read the Declaration again ... it doesn't need to be included in the constitution or laws of government -- it lays out the rights of people that cannot be taken away by government(s) ... that are inalienable ... and that when governments do try to take them away (as the current administration is doing), it says this is justification to form a new government.
Naturally I decided to correct you here.
... the statue of liberty holds a poem. also not a binding document.
And I didn't say they were binding documents.
But together these form part of the cultural heritage of what it is to be American -- they espouse American ideals that are a fundamental element of our cultural heritage, our national "persona".
RAZD, ciivilians of this nation have things afforded to them, because they are citizens, that non-citizens are not available to, just like you going to Nigeria, or Ukraine, or Wales, etc, wouldn't be available to you for the same reason. That doesn't mean that human decency doesn't exist.
Your argument is still based on the US compared to other countries, and NOT the US compared to what is morally justified. Please try to step up to the argument.
RAZD, I know you pine over the destruction of the US ...
You know, nem, when you post stuff like this you just look incredibly stupid, arrogant, ignorant and insulting in what you assume about others. When all else fails try the old gratuitous ad hominem eh?
How come you can't answer the simple question I've asked 3 or 4 times now nem? Is it too tough for you?
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?
Is there a problem with comprehension?
Moreover, you never answered my question. Do you want a completely free border?
Does my OP say that? Maybe you could try reading for comprehension one of these days ...
Do you want to pay for people whether they work or not, yes or no?
What part of "[/i]We are already paying for them[/i]" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? You've GOT the answer in front of you -- is there a comprehension problem?
Immigration has nothing to do with terrorism.
But an open border does.
And even a completely closed border will not prevent it. Try Google News on Fort Dix. This is STILL a different issue than immigration. We are talking about immigration, and NOT whatever red herrings you bring up.
That means citizens have certain privileges that do not extend to non-residents. If someone wants to become a citizen, they can do so by going through the proper channels. So, honestly, what is the problem?
The US was built on immigration without restrictions.
Thanks for quoting my answer. Now try reading it for comprehension. Remember to include my question -- that you have yet to address:
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?
A good question is how does the United States strike a balance between security and freedom?
quote:"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both." "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"
You can huddle in fear of terrorists if you want to. But if you try to hand my liberties and freedoms away because of your fear I get to tell you what a gullible fool you are.
How do we protect society without losing civil liberties?
With civil laws that respect those liberties ... and freedoms and rights. You base those laws on the highest standards, not just on being just a little bit better than someone else. You make civil laws that treat people with dignity and respect, from those who cannot fit in to society to those who come here looking for work. You start with basic human rights.
I'll note that when I lived in Canada I was able to work there for many years without having to become a citizen. This still gave me access to medical care and basic amenities of civilized life.
If there are people coming here to work ... then LET THEM WORK. What's the problem with that?
Message 1 This would provide a safety-net for US citizens as well as a work-to-citizenship program for immigrants.
You open the border for workers. Many workers cross the border between Canada and US every day to work.
You have a program where people earn citizenship (OP). Many may chose to work but not become citizens: that is their choice (as it was mine in Canada).
The best approach is to show how a goose can keep laying golden eggs, and not to starve the goose to death and stop the flow of golden eggs.
Other than to imply that greed, isolationism, ignoring the problem and closed doors is "moral" ...
1. Abolish Affirmative Action
Not part of the immigration issue. Start another thread if you want to discuss this. This also does not apply to people coming into this country.
2. Flat tax for everyone
Not part of the immigration issue. Start another thread if you want to discuss this. This also does not apply to people coming into this country.
3. No quotas on immigration from any country
No problem -- or are you implying there should be?
4. Same paperwork for anyone coming in to this country (since illegals have no paperwork, then everyone gets that)
Everyone gets new papers with complete identification profile (fingerprints, DNA, etc). This would also remove a roadblock for refugees that also have no paperwork.
Now, see if you can answer the question:
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?
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 if I may quote you from another thread:
Anyone with even a nominal familiarity with psychology knows that anyone that defensive about innocuous questions must have some underlying problem with the inquiry.
I think its evident at this point that perhaps you've reached some epiphany and you're just lashing out in frustration.
You can't answer the question, can you? Look, if this is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. I've never seen you this inane or flustered before.
™ Version 4.2