Mexican Earthquake (NOT!)

[BlackShanglan]

I can see your point but the ecconomics will still be the same. Failing public heath systems, overcrowed schools, stressed medical facilities. That is one of the reasons quotas were instituted on immigration!

I just don't see the reasonning behind the thought. A nice thought but confusing in the least.

I disagree. Given that we already have millions of undocumented illegal immigrants using those services and not paying for them, it's not clear to me how making them pay to use them is likely to overwhelm those services. There would be more money going into the system, not less. It's true that we might also have more immigrants, but then we'd have more tax income as well because each of those people would be legally present and taxable. Given that legal immigrants would be able to hold legal jobs - jobs that pay taxes and minimum wage - I don't see how they're likely to be any more of a problem than the people we already have using those services and paying for them.


Shanglan

 

[entitled]

The system was set up to handle those of us (US Citizens) who happen to need help with their lives. The influx of illegals have drained that help to a point where it is highly unlikely that it will be able to continue much farther into the future.

So the Citizens of this country who truely need help should be moved to the front of the line. Then if there is any left?!

Now do you see my deliema, a deliema that confronts all of us. The other option is to do way with public assitance all together and rely on private orginizations.

The system was also set up to make it exceedingly difficult for those who truly want to become citizens to reach those goals. This is despite the fact that they could be contributing to society, paying into the system, and assisting in a way that will help keep it from being drained.

It's a circular thing. Either money is poured into trying to keep the illegals out, or we make it easier for them to become legal and pour money into supporting them. It's a catch 22 situation.

About moving away from public assistance... You know all of those social security and medicaid/medicare reforms that have been happening lately? They're already moving toward relying completely on private organisations.

 

[zeb1094]

I disagree. Given that we already have millions of undocumented illegal immigrants using those services and not paying for them, it's not clear to me how making them pay to use them is likely to overwhelm those services. There would be more money going into the system, not less. It's true that we might also have more immigrants, but then we'd have more tax income as well because each of those people would be legally present and taxable. Given that legal immigrants would be able to hold legal jobs - jobs that pay taxes and minimum wage - I don't see how they're likely to be any more of a problem than the people we already have using those services and paying for them.


Shanglan

Tell me how that works. If any employer can hire an illegal for $3 an hour why would he pay a legal $4.50 and hour and go to the expense of setting up a tax account, etc. for him! So now that the illegal is legal do you think he will choose unemployment or $3 an hour and staying off the tax roles?

 

[zeb1094]

The system was also set up to make it exceedingly difficult for those who truly want to become citizens to reach those goals. This is despite the fact that they could be contributing to society, paying into the system, and assisting in a way that will help keep it from being drained.

It's a circular thing. Either money is poured into trying to keep the illegals out, or we make it easier for them to become legal and pour money into supporting them. It's a catch 22 situation.

About moving away from public assistance... You know all of those social security and medicaid/medicare reforms that have been happening lately? They're already moving toward relying completely on private organisations.

Yes quota's were put in place. Why? To keep the lower wage earners out of the system. Why would we as a country want to allow in those who would just enrole in an aid program. That would be fiscal suicide! Hence quota's. Every country has them.

 

[entitled]

Tell me how that works. If any employer can hire an illegal for $3 an hour why would he pay a legal $4.50 and hour and go to the expense of setting up a tax account, etc. for him! So now that the illegal is legal do you think he will choose unemployment or $3 an hour and staying off the tax roles?

If there aren't as many illegals because they're all legals, it would be harder to hire them.

Yes quota's were put in place. Why? To keep the lower wage earners out of the system. Why would we as a country want to allow in those who would just enrole in an aid program. That would be fiscal suicide! Hence quota's. Every country has them.

And we've talked in a circle. Wasn't this your same arguement a page or so ago?

Lower wage earners aren't the problem. In fact, they help make business owners successful. The problem is the fact that those low wage earners that aren't legal citizens are not getting taxed. If they were allowed to become legal their wages would be taxed, so they would be paying back into the system, which would cover their use of the aid programs, therefore wouldn't be a problem. The quota doesn't allow this. Instead we're left pouring taxpayer dollars into defending the borders instead of legalising and taxing these people.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Tell me how that works. If any employer can hire an illegal for $3 an hour why would he pay a legal $4.50 and hour and go to the expense of setting up a tax account, etc. for him! So now that the illegal is legal do you think he will choose unemployment or $3 an hour and staying off the tax roles?

I think he will choose to ask for the rights he now has.

The problem with illegal labor is that it is, by its nature, very open to abuse. If your choice is to take the $3/hour or to have your employer contact the immigration services and have you deported, you'll take the $3. You'll take a lot of other things, as well; abuses from unfair stoppage of pay to physical and sexual abuse are rife in areas where employers have the sort of power that they gain when their workers have no legal rights and are easily terrorized. Workers who are allowed to be in the country, however, are much more likely to report employer abuses and hold them to the limits set down by law.

Why should we care? Well, there are of course moral reasons - but there are practical reasons as well. If you're an employer with access to $3/hour labor that you can abuse at will - poor/dangerous working conditions, low pay, sporadic payment, etc. - why would you pay minimum wage to a citizen likely to upset that whole situation by complaining about the illegal aspects? If, on the other hand, everyone is on equal footing, then you've got no reason to prefer one over the other.

Yes, we could theoretically attack that problem with draconian penalities for employers who use illegal immigrants. However, any employer at least a little clever will run this all through a company that holds most of the liability and little or no assets. He'll run fly-by-night with a strong emphasis on plausible deniability and movement from place to place. He'll cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to track down, and in the end he'll pay next to nothing of that back in fines. And in the meantime, he'll be busily employing the ilegal immigrants who are desperate enough to keep trying.

Consider the alternative. Everyone works legally. Everyone pays taxes. No one pays to track down people who really just want to support their families, and workers with actual rights and the courage to enforce them become - for free - the best and most efficient means of identifying and stamping out rogue employers. Right now, people put up with $3/hour because they have to. Make them legal, and many fewer of them will have to. Ultimately, that's good news for everyone.

Shanglan

 

[zeb1094]

If there aren't as many illegals because they're all legals, it would be harder to hire them.

Wrong answer! Reread my question.

And we've talked in a circle. Wasn't this your same arguement a page or so ago?

No.

Lower wage earners aren't the problem. In fact, they help make business owners successful. The problem is the fact that those low wage earners that aren't legal citizens are not getting taxed. If they were allowed to become legal their wages would be taxed, so they would be paying back into the system, which would cover their use of the aid programs, therefore wouldn't be a problem. The quota doesn't allow this. Instead we're left pouring taxpayer dollars into defending the borders instead of legalising and taxing these people.

Wrong! They would remain untaxed as it would cost the employer too much to raise their wages to the minimum and set up all the accounts needs to place them on the tax rolls. Thus they would also remain a burden on the rest of the country while sending most of their earning out of the country.

 

[cloudy]

Wrong! They would remain untaxed as it would cost the employer too much to raise their wages to the minimum and set up all the accounts needs to place them on the tax rolls. Thus they would also remain a burden on the rest of the country while sending most of their earning out of the country.

Zeb, I like you, but I just wanted to let you know that you're coming across as someone that's got "bigot" written across their forehead.

Just sayin'.

And now I'm out of here.

 

[entitled]

Wrong answer! Reread my question.

i read this:
If any employer can hire an illegal for $3 an hour why would he pay a legal $4.50 and hour and go to the expense of setting up a tax account, etc. for him!
and answered it

No.

Speaking of the need for rereading... Try it yourself.

Wrong! They would remain untaxed as it would cost the employer too much to raise their wages to the minimum and set up all the accounts needs to place them on the tax rolls. Thus they would also remain a burden on the rest of the country while sending most of their earning out of the country.

Not wrong! They couldn't remain untaxed unless they really wanted the government to come after both them and their employer. They would either become unemployed or the employer would have to find a way to deal witht he taxation and such.

 

[zeb1094]

I think he will choose to ask for the rights he now has.

The problem with illegal labor is that it is, by its nature, very open to abuse. If your choice is to take the $3/hour or to have your employer contact the immigration services and have you deported, you'll take the $3. You'll take a lot of other things, as well; abuses from unfair stoppage of pay to physical and sexual abuse are rife in areas where employers have the sort of power that they gain when their workers have no legal rights and are easily terrorized. Workers who are allowed to be in the country, however, are much more likely to report employer abuses and hold them to the limits set down by law.

Why should we care? Well, there are of course moral reasons - but there are practical reasons as well. If you're an employer with access to $3/hour labor that you can abuse at will - poor/dangerous working conditions, low pay, sporadic payment, etc. - why would you pay minimum wage to a citizen likely to upset that whole situation by complaining about the illegal aspects? If, on the other hand, everyone is on equal footing, then you've got no reason to prefer one over the other.

Yes, we could theoretically attack that problem with draconian penalities for employers who use illegal immigrants. However, any employer at least a little clever will run this all through a company that holds most of the liability and little or no assets. He'll run fly-by-night with a strong emphasis on plausible deniability and movement from place to place. He'll cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to track down, and in the end he'll pay next to nothing of that back in fines. And in the meantime, he'll be busily employing the ilegal immigrants who are desperate enough to keep trying.

Consider the alternative. Everyone works legally. Everyone pays taxes. No one pays to track down people who really just want to support their families, and workers with actual rights and the courage to enforce them become - for free - the best and most efficient means of identifying and stamping out rogue employers. Right now, people put up with $3/hour because they have to. Make them legal, and many fewer of them will have to. Ultimately, that's good news for everyone.

Shanglan

But there is a flaw! The question isn't wheter the employee, who is now legal, wants his rights. It's about whether he want a job period! There are always those who will take a job for less than minimum if that all there is they can do! So the immorality continues, whether the status of the person is legal or not.

I have not had first hand contact with such but a family member has as the profession he is in warrents the employer to hire the cheapest labor available whether legal or illegal.

 

[entitled]

But there is a flaw! The question isn't wheter the employee, who is now legal, wants his rights. It's about whether he want a job period! There are always those who will take a job for less than minimum if that all there is they can do! So the immorality continues, whether the status of the person is legal or not.

I have not had first hand contact with such but a family member has as the profession he is in warrents the employer to hire the cheapest labor available whether legal or illegal.

(bold added by me)

This might be why we're having this discussion in the first place. This may also be why you're not listening to a very sensible equine and a not so sensible person who's had more contact with the corrupt little system than ANYbody ever should.

Good enough reason for me not to have to talk in circles anymore.

 

[zeb1094]

Zeb, I like you, but I just wanted to let you know that you're coming across as someone that's got "bigot" written across their forehead.

Just sayin'.

And now I'm out of here.

Well I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. I could care less where a person comes from, what race they are or religion, etc. It's just that 98 % of the illegals in the country happen to be of Hispanic descent. I would have the same view if they came from some place like...France or Italy. What they have done is violate the laws of our country.

A criminal is a criminal. I call it like I see it!

ETA: And how to say this politely: there is no way!

Take an airiel intercourse at an undulating pastry!

 

[zeb1094]

i read this:
If any employer can hire an illegal for $3 an hour why would he pay a legal $4.50 and hour and go to the expense of setting up a tax account, etc. for him!
and answered it

Speaking of the need for rereading... Try it yourself.




Not wrong! They couldn't remain untaxed unless they really wanted the government to come after both them and their employer. They would either become unemployed or the employer would have to find a way to deal witht he taxation and such.

The question was:

So now that the illegal is legal do you think he will choose unemployment or $3 an hour and staying off the tax roles?

Kind of ignored it, didn't you.

 

[BlackShanglan]

But there is a flaw! The question isn't wheter the employee, who is now legal, wants his rights. It's about whether he want a job period! There are always those who will take a job for less than minimum if that all there is they can do! So the immorality continues, whether the status of the person is legal or not.

I have not had first hand contact with such but a family member has as the profession he is in warrents the employer to hire the cheapest labor available whether legal or illegal.

Yes, but then we're not talking about a problem that really has anything to do with immigration. There are already people living in this country who need jobs and are likely to work for less than minimum wage if that's the only option. The chief thing that legalizing immigration would do would be to shrink the pool of available workers for those people from "people who are terrified that they will be deported" to just "people who are really willing to work for less than minimum wage even when other options, including turning their employers in to the feds and making a complaint, exist."

I think that your own sentence sums it up best: "So the immorality continues, whether the status of the person is legal or not." Yes. That means that this particular sub-issue, while a real problem, is not primarily about immigration. It's about exploitation of vulnerable workers in any capacity, including those who are US-born citizens. Legalizing immigration can't put an end to humans being unethical - there will always be plenty of those - but it will make it harder rather than easier, because their pool of potential employees will be smaller and less vulnerable.

Shanglan

 

[entitled]

The question was:

So now that the illegal is legal do you think he will choose unemployment or $3 an hour and staying off the tax roles?

Kind of ignored it, didn't you.

Why yes. Yes you did.

 

[zeb1094]

Yes, but then we're not talking about a problem that really has anything to do with immigration. There are already people living in this country who need jobs and are likely to work for less than minimum wage if that's the only option. The chief thing that legalizing immigration would do would be to shrink the pool of available workers for those people from "people who are terrified that they will be deported" to just "people who are really willing to work for less than minimum wage even when other options, including turning their employers in to the feds and making a complaint, exist."

I think that your own sentence sums it up best: "So the immorality continues, whether the status of the person is legal or not." Yes. That means that this particular sub-issue, while a real problem, is not primarily about immigration. It's about exploitation of vulnerable workers in any capacity, including those who are US-born citizens. Legalizing immigration can't put an end to humans being unethical - there will always be plenty of those - but it will make it harder rather than easier, because their pool of potential employees will be smaller and less vulnerable.

Shanglan

True, I conceed that point and may be another thread!

 

[BlackShanglan]

A criminal is a criminal. I call it like I see it!

I think that one can also debate whether a law is just. There have been times and places, for example, when a black person marryng a white person was a criminal, or when anyone helping a human being escape slavery was a criminal, or when anyone speaking Irish or assisting at priest at mass was a criminal. That did not, in my opinion, make those people wrong; it made the laws unjust.

One of the chief problems of unjust laws is that they make criminals out of otherwise unoffending people. That has a number of effects. It makes people live lives of misery without reason. It gives the population as a whole contempt for the law when it is both unreasonable and incapable of enforcement. It allows individuals in positions of moderate (and unelected) power to terrorize others for their own ends.

None of these are good or useful effects. When a law has these effects, one must carefully question why this is the case and how it fits into the goals of the law. One must question whether the law is just, and whether it is reasonable. I do not deny that there are times when very unpopular or difficult-to-enforce laws are the right choice, but they are never an easy choice. They require immense effort to enforce, and they will never be thoroughly and completely obeyed. If, in addition, they lack a strong economic and/or moral grounding, one must question whether the laws were good ones to begin with.

Shanglan

 

[cloudy]

I think that one can also debate whether a law is just. There have been times and places, for example, when a black person marryng a white person was a criminal, or when anyone helping a human being escape slavery was a criminal, or when anyone speaking Irish or assisting at priest at mass was a criminal. That did not, in my opinion, make those people wrong; it made the laws unjust.

One of the chief problems of unjust laws is that they make criminals out of otherwise unoffending people. That has a number of effects. It makes people live lives of misery without reason. It gives the population as a whole contempt for the law when it is both unreasonable and incapable of enforcement. It allows individuals in positions of moderate (and unelected) power to terrorize others for their own ends.

None of these are good or useful effects. When a law has these effects, one must carefully question why this is the case and how it fits into the goals of the law. One must question whether the law is just, and whether it is reasonable. I do not deny that there are times when very unpopular or difficult-to-enforce laws are the right choice, but they are never an easy choice. They require immense effort to enforce, and they will never be thoroughly and completely obeyed. If, in addition, they lack a strong economic and/or moral grounding, one must question whether the laws were good ones to begin with.

Shanglan

Thank you!

Just because it's "the law" doesn't make it right.

Blindly screaming "it's the law!" just makes someone a sheep, not righteous.

 

[BlackShanglan]

True, I conceed that point and may be another thread!

Thank you, Zeb, that's very decent of you. I quite agree with you on the point of exploitation of workers, but perhaps it's the old Marxist in me coming to the fore.

 

[Pure]

note to zeb,

A criminal is a criminal. I call it like I see it!

Hey man, it's called commerce, business, free trade. Man want to hire someone for $5/hr; someone wants to work for $5/hr. there's the deal. (that someone is not under 12, nor is a gun at their head, nor are they about to starve to death; nor are they being hired to kill someone). It's entirely moral.

All laws in 'restraint of trade' for adult (non coerced) dealings are bogus ones, established by special interest groups (e.g., those American citizens who're holding out for $12/hr).

All laws in restraint of trade, besides being wrong, are useless: The demand being there, the takers will find a way, be it across the desert or through a tunnel, or hidden in a cargo container.

Free trade solves these artificial barriers: in response to the silly laws, people smugglers see a profit; they charge a pretty penny to help the would be worker into the country. the worker ends up paying a couple years wages. And the work is done. And the goods appear on the market and are bought by the likes of Mr. Zeb, John and Jane Doe, of the First Church of Calvary, Baptist.

your statement
Again, it's my money, it's your money, that pays for the public services that the Illegals are draining dry.

That's plain silly: you save at the restaurant, in the supermarket, at a hotel. Instead of a little tax, you'd rather have a $20 lunch, $10/basket strawberries, and $250/night for your hotel. That's just foolish.

 

[zeb1094]

Thank you!

Just because it's "the law" doesn't make it right.

Blindly screaming "it's the law!" just makes someone a sheep, not righteous.

Fine until you get the law changed I'll shut the fuck up and press my public officials to arrest, detain and deport said individuals!

Once you have the laws changed I'll shut the fuck up completely and move on to other subjects! Like government schools.

Yeah that's the ticket government schools.

 

[zeb1094]

A criminal is a criminal. I call it like I see it!

Hey man, it's called commerce, business, free trade. Man want to hire someone for $5/hr; someone wants to work for $5/hr. there's the deal. (that someone is not under 12, nor is a gun at their head, nor are they about to starve to death).

All laws in 'restraint of trade' for adult (non coerced) dealings are bogus ones, established by special interest groups (e.g., those American citizens who're holding out for $12/hr).

All laws in restraint of trade, besides being wrong, are useless: The demand being there, the takers will find a way, be it across the desert or through a tunnel, or hidden in a cargo container.

Free trade solves these artificial barriers: in response to the silly laws, people smugglers see a profit; they charge a pretty penny to help the would be worker into the country. the worker ends up paying a couple years wages. And the work is done. And the goods appear on the market and are bought by the likes of Mr. Zeb, John and Jane Doe, of the First Church of Calvary, Baptist.

your statement
Again, it's my money, it's your money, that pays for the public services that the Illegals are draining dry.

That's plain silly: you save at the restaurant, in the supermarket, at a hotel. Instead of a little tax, you'd rather have a $20 lunch, $10/basket strawberries, and $250/night for your hotel. That's just foolish.

Can it clowny!

 

[Pure]

as to the law,

zeb, you don't seem in favor of it, why is that? i'm talking about the law making it difficult to deport illegals.

i think we should support our laws, and not have those with radical agendas changing them all the time for no good reason.

ADDED: There is at present no law against BEING in the US without papers. So apparently you want to put another law on the books--don't you think 10,000 are enough?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Fine until you get the law changed I'll shut the fuck up and press my public officials to arrest, detain and deport said individuals!

Once you have the laws changed I'll shut the fuck up completely and move on to other subjects! Like government schools.

Yeah that's the ticket government schools.

But if a law is unjust - and I recognize that we've not established that this one is, but it seems that we're speaking more generally here - isn't it better to join the movement to repeal it rather than the one to enforce it?

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

But if a law is unjust - and I recognize that we've not established that this one is, but it seems that we're speaking more generally here - isn't it better to join the movement to repeal it rather than the one to enforce it?

Shanglan

Speaking generally, I can't see why why one can't do both. Follow and enforce the law (out of sheer principle) while working to change it. Everything else is civil disobedience. Which can be a choice too, and often is, because changing laws is ofrten a too slow process, and while that makes the rounds, people suffer for it.

Just saying that enforcing the law and repealing it doesn't nessecarily oppose one another.

It's like the Support The Troops thing. You may not like that they're there, and you may work to bring them home, but you do support them none the less.