RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 3:05:53 PM

Posts: 2
Joined: 6/13/2009
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to cadenas)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 3:46:39 PM

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to jtodd77)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 3:52:26 PM

Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to jtodd77)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 4:00:00 PM

Posts: 2068
Joined: 1/4/2008
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Don't fight him. Embrace your inner asshole.

Tu fellas magnus penum meum...iterum

Genuine catnip/kryptonite.
Ego sum erus.

The capacity to learn is a gift, the ability to learn a skill, the willingness to learn a choice. Dune HH

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 5:02:22 PM

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 5:15:39 PM

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

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)

(in reply to blacksword404)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 5:33:00 PM

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to cadenas)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 6:15:07 PM

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 6:23:02 PM

Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to cadenas)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 6:56:37 PM

Posts: 2068
Joined: 1/4/2008
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Don't fight him. Embrace your inner asshole.

Tu fellas magnus penum meum...iterum

Genuine catnip/kryptonite.
Ego sum erus.

The capacity to learn is a gift, the ability to learn a skill, the willingness to learn a choice. Dune HH

(in reply to cadenas)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 7:10:29 PM

Posts: 2068
Joined: 1/4/2008
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Don't fight him. Embrace your inner asshole.

Tu fellas magnus penum meum...iterum

Genuine catnip/kryptonite.
Ego sum erus.

The capacity to learn is a gift, the ability to learn a skill, the willingness to learn a choice. Dune HH

(in reply to cadenas)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 8:28:44 PM

Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to awmslave)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 8:33:46 PM

Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 8:38:55 PM

Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to jtodd77)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 10:39:50 PM

Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 10:49:07 PM

Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to subfever)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 10:54:29 PM

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/15/2009 11:01:32 PM

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/16/2009 12:31:54 AM

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Loki45)

RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens - 6/16/2009 12:40:45 AM

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to blacksword404)

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Minutemen not protecting US citizens

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.109