|
Do you honestly not understand the importance of boarders to a sovereign nation?What I love is the language,
A "flood" of immigrants
taking away "american" jobs
I don't get borders, I don't get border policy. I don't get jingoism. Maybe I'm a weird idealist. But I just think it's all silly.
If an immigrant illegal or otherwise comes here and gets a job so what. I've never cared about immigration illegal or otherwise and I don't believe in borders. I wouldn't care if 10 trillion mexicans flooded america stealing jobs. I don't get why others do. Why do we even have laws to guard a border from immigration.
Why do Americans have inalienable rights, but if your born in mexico you don't have those rights. I personally think that America is a land of ideals and that ideals don't have borders. The more people coming here and enjoying the benefits of our way of life the better.
Like i said, I just don't get it.
And yes I do understand the problem of undocumented workers benefiting from the system without paying into it, but I don't think that's a border issue, I think that's a taxation issue, not an immigration issue, I don't really think there should even be such a thing as immigration issues. We need to change our draconian tax system to one that would actually work and get everyone paying into the system. Like say the fair tax.
I understand it intellectually, I just don't get it. I don't understand the need in our modern world for sovereign nation and borders. However I honestly believe if we reformed our tax system, that there would be no need for it. What exactly makes a difference if a person born south of our border is doing the work or a person born in our border is doing the work.
|
|
I don't get borders, I don't get border policy.Cool. Let me know where you live. Next time I'm in the area, I'll storm in, eat your food, sleep on your bed, and clog your toilet. You can feel free to call me Gold***cks.
Um I'm pretty sure that they pay for things and work for a living, if they're stealing, that's different. I'm not advocating getting rid of all laws. But if we enabled anyone who wanted to just come work and enjoy the benefits of our nation and had a tax system that could actually collect from them (once again like the fair tax). Then what horrible thing are they doing that we have to prevent? being mexican? is that really so horrible?
|
|
Wow, advocating meaningless slaughter to protect silly concepts. Here's a question for you, what is so important to protect that is worth killing them for.
And remember, you aren't advocating this kind of slaughter to prevent terrorism, you're doing it to prevent illegal immigration. So explain to me what they are doing that's so terrible it's worth killing for.
He's either trolling or delusional; I'm not sure which.
I don't think I'm either Bugleyman. You may of course disagree but I want our borders secure and the best way I know is to make it a death threat to try and cross.
The whole reason the illegals come here is to get a better life for their families correct? well then imagine if they knew they would have a chance of dieing trying to get here, walk on a landmine and all of a sudden your wife and 19 kids are without a father. That will deter a good portion of them, the landmines will take out a few more and then finally our borders will be secure.
Until the drug cartels lead a bunch of dogs through one specific trail so that by the time they walk through, the mines are all gone. And since it's the cartels doing it, they can now charge even more for safe passage, increasing the profitability and their ability to exploit those they are smuggling.
So you would rather see men woman and children get blown to bits? and just as a matter of interest how do you view Americans founding fathers?
I do not understand the question concerning our founding fathers? Could you please clarify what it is your asking?
The men,women and children seems unlikely once they realise that they could be killed no one is going to risk their child.
As far as the other post pointing out the dogs to disable the landmines, once border patrol hears or detects the boom or just regularly monitor them then the mines can be replaced.
Lastknightleft,
I understand it intellectually, I just don't get it. I don't understand the need in our modern world for sovereign nation and borders. However I honestly believe if we reformed our tax system, that there would be no need for it. What exactly makes a difference if a person born south of our border is doing the work or a person born in our border is doing the work.
I agree with you that we need to reform our taxs,abolish the irs and a few other government agency's and yes your fair tax would solve one of my main grips about the illegals not contributeing to this country's taxes.
How ever if you come here illegally you should be punished, you are breaking the law by being here without permission. Every other nation on the planet has much tougher immigration laws than we do and they don't have this parasite problem.
Um I'm pretty sure that they pay for things and work for a living, if they're stealing, that's different. I'm not advocating getting rid of all laws. But if we enabled anyone who wanted to just come work and enjoy the benefits of our nation and had a tax system that could actually collect from them (once again like the fair tax). Then what horrible thing are they doing that we have to prevent? being mexican? is that really so horrible?I don't get borders, I don't get border policy.Cool. Let me know where you live. Next time I'm in the area, I'll storm in, eat your food, sleep on your bed, and clog your toilet. You can feel free to call me Gold***cks.
I can trespass on your property with no consequences. Remember you don't understand borders, thus the concept of trespassing is beyond your ken.
|
|
I'm 40yrs old and I never had to even see an illeagl in my home town growing up, now they're all over the place. When I was a kid growing up and working in the tobbaco feilds I could make a good wage of 200 a week, it wasn't a whole lot but when your a 12 yr old it was plenty. Now you don't see any white or black people in the feilds cause the mexicans have taken over, you can't blame the farmers because they have to make money so why pay a white boy 5 bucks an hour when a mex will work for a dollar an hour and the mex can't complain cause nobody will listen or care.
.
So it's the immigrants fault that the employer is a jackass who doesn't obey the minimum wage laws?
Because seriously what is the fault in thinking that says, "oh, you can't blame the guy for hiring illegals who will work for cheap" but then blame the immigrants for "I don't care if they're desperate, they're breaking our laws and should be punished."
The person who's to blame is the guy who is ignoring the minimum wage laws so that he can hire more people to do the same amount of work quicker. He's the one that should be forced to walk through a mine field because he's not only breaking the law, he's taking advantage of desperate people. Would it suddenly be okay if instead of paying illegals $3 an hour he was instead getting homeless people?
|
|
I can trespass on your property with no consequences. Remember you don't understand borders, thus the concept of trespassing is beyond your ken.Um I'm pretty sure that they pay for things and work for a living, if they're stealing, that's different. I'm not advocating getting rid of all laws. But if we enabled anyone who wanted to just come work and enjoy the benefits of our nation and had a tax system that could actually collect from them (once again like the fair tax). Then what horrible thing are they doing that we have to prevent? being mexican? is that really so horrible?I don't get borders, I don't get border policy.Cool. Let me know where you live. Next time I'm in the area, I'll storm in, eat your food, sleep on your bed, and clog your toilet. You can feel free to call me Gold***cks.
Actually if you aren't hurting anything or stealing my stuff, I have no problem with you passing through my property, but yeah, lets equate national borders with personal property because they are the exact same thing. Exactly, not a hint of difference.
|
|
So you would rather see men woman and children get blown to bits? and just as a matter of interest how do you view Americans founding fathers?I do not understand the question concerning our founding fathers? Could you please clarify what it is your asking?
The men,women and children seems unlikely once they realise that they could be killed no one is going to risk their child.
As far as the other post pointing out the dogs to disable the landmines, once border patrol hears or detects the boom or just regularly monitor them then the mines can be replaced.
except for the fact that the same problem exists with that as exists with our current border system. It's humongous, the border has miles and miles of desert where a mine could go off and no one would hear it or find out about it. Even with increased security. Then there's the problem that the border runs through rivers at points, and near cities, are we supposed to mine riverfront. Then don't forget the ecological ramifications, animals unable to live in their ecosystems because they're laced with explosives. How much cost is going to replace mines that are destroyed by wild animals, and what about the fact that once again, miles upon miles of empty land, if someone gets lost in the desert are they just a poor casualty, is that okay collateral?
except for the fact that the same problem exists with that as exists with our current border system. It's humongous, the border has miles and miles of desert where a mine could go off and no one would hear it or find out about it. Even with increased security. Then there's the problem that the border runs through rivers at points, and near cities, are we supposed to mine riverfront. Then don't forget the ecological ramifications, animals unable to live in their ecosystems because they're laced with explosives. How much cost is going to replace mines that are destroyed by wild animals, and what about the fact that once again, miles upon miles of empty land, if someone gets lost in the desert are they just a poor casualty, is that okay collateral?So you would rather see men woman and children get blown to bits? and just as a matter of interest how do you view Americans founding fathers?I do not understand the question concerning our founding fathers? Could you please clarify what it is your asking?
The men,women and children seems unlikely once they realise that they could be killed no one is going to risk their child.
As far as the other post pointing out the dogs to disable the landmines, once border patrol hears or detects the boom or just regularly monitor them then the mines can be replaced.
A good point on the fact that our border includes a hell of a lot of desert and overall inhospitable landscape. Even if I was in favor of a little claret on the border, land mines(and their shameful history) wouldn't be how I went about it.
Actually if you aren't hurting anything or stealing my stuff, I have no problem with you passing through my property, but yeah, lets equate national borders with personal property because they are the exact same thing. Exactly, not a hint of difference.I can trespass on your property with no consequences. Remember you don't understand borders, thus the concept of trespassing is beyond your ken.Um I'm pretty sure that they pay for things and work for a living, if they're stealing, that's different. I'm not advocating getting rid of all laws. But if we enabled anyone who wanted to just come work and enjoy the benefits of our nation and had a tax system that could actually collect from them (once again like the fair tax). Then what horrible thing are they doing that we have to prevent? being mexican? is that really so horrible?I don't get borders, I don't get border policy.Cool. Let me know where you live. Next time I'm in the area, I'll storm in, eat your food, sleep on your bed, and clog your toilet. You can feel free to call me Gold***cks.
Fundamentally they are the same thing, the fact that you can't make this connection is very telling. What right do I have to come into your home and start camping out? What right does someone from another country have to invade and set up camp? If I go around and mow people's yards on your street for $20 a yard, does that make it ok for me to barge into your home?
My question is why is everyone so upset about a State Law that is nearly word for word the same as a Federal Law about checking IDs in an incident of being pulled over - that same law applies applies to everyone in the US. So why be mad at Arizon at all?
GP
|
The person who's to blame is the guy who is ignoring the minimum wage laws so that he can hire more people to do the same amount of work quicker. He's the one that should be forced to walk through a mine field because he's not only breaking the law, he's taking advantage of desperate people.
He's not to blame. He's just trying to make a buck. Just like the cheap labor he's hiring.
OK Illegal immagrants dont pay taxes hence the word illegal!Our economy is already having trouble coping with everything before the fall of the housing market, Illegal immagrants work off the books, hence they are not paying back into the system that supports them, there medical & schooling for there children is covered by OUR TAX PAYING PEOPLE, I dont have a problem with anyone who pays there taxes,they can stay if they pay the taxes or theyre back owed taxes,But they need to go through the proper legal channels to be a immagrant(my parents did after WWII & they were broke) if they dont have the money SEND EM BACK. IF I DONT PAY MY TAXES THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PUT ME IN JAIL. SEE Im for equal opportunity as long as its fair.
OK Illegal immagrants dont pay taxes hence the word illegal!Our economy is already having trouble coping with everything before the fall of the housing market, Illegal immagrants work off the books, hence they are not paying back into the system that supports them, there medical & schooling for there children is covered by OUR TAX PAYING PEOPLE, I dont have a problem with anyone who pays there taxes,they can stay if they pay the taxes or theyre back owed taxes,But they need to go through the proper legal channels to be a immagrant(my parents did after WWII & they were broke) if they dont have the money SEND EM BACK. IF I DONT PAY MY TAXES THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PUT ME IN JAIL. SEE Im for equal opportunity as long as its fair.
Broke in terms of current standards or by WWII era standards? Those are two very different things. Also, the financial cost of becoming a citizen has increased significantly.
|
|
Fundamentally they are the same thing, the fact that you can't make this connection is very telling. What right do I have to come into your home and start camping out? What right does someone from another country have to invade and set up camp? If I go around and mow people's yards on your street for $20 a yard, does that make it ok for me to barge into your home?Actually if you aren't hurting anything or stealing my stuff, I have no problem with you passing through my property, but yeah, lets equate national borders with personal property because they are the exact same thing. Exactly, not a hint of difference.I can trespass on your property with no consequences. Remember you don't understand borders, thus the concept of trespassing is beyond your ken.Um I'm pretty sure that they pay for things and work for a living, if they're stealing, that's different. I'm not advocating getting rid of all laws. But if we enabled anyone who wanted to just come work and enjoy the benefits of our nation and had a tax system that could actually collect from them (once again like the fair tax). Then what horrible thing are they doing that we have to prevent? being mexican? is that really so horrible?I don't get borders, I don't get border policy.Cool. Let me know where you live. Next time I'm in the area, I'll storm in, eat your food, sleep on your bed, and clog your toilet. You can feel free to call me Gold***cks.
Really because I can't see how fundamentally they could be further apart. Governments aren't private entities and your if your argument is what right do they have to come camp out here, your argument can be extended to say we should all be kicked out of the country unless we have native american blood in our system.
|
My question is why is everyone so upset about a State Law that is nearly word for word the same as a Federal Law about checking IDs in an incident of being pulled over - that same law applies applies to everyone in the US. So why be mad at Arizon at all?
GP
Because the people who passed the law have an "R" after their name. Had Obama come out and started making DHS enforce the laws on the Fed books that are even more strict than Arizona law, people would hail it as a bold move and lick the sweat off his balls for the healing properties.
|
|
OK Illegal immagrants dont pay taxes hence the word illegal!Our economy is already having trouble coping with everything before the fall of the housing market, Illegal immagrants work off the books, hence they are not paying back into the system that supports them, there medical & schooling for there children is covered by OUR TAX PAYING PEOPLE, I dont have a problem with anyone who pays there taxes,they can stay if they pay the taxes or theyre back owed taxes,But they need to go through the proper legal channels to be a immagrant(my parents did after WWII & they were broke) if they dont have the money SEND EM BACK. IF I DONT PAY MY TAXES THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PUT ME IN JAIL. SEE Im for equal opportunity as long as its fair.
Which is an argument for tax reform. If we switched to a sales tax system, like once again say, the fair tax, then there'd be no way whatsoever to avoid paying into the system, unless of course, they never bought anything ever.
My question is why is everyone so upset about a State Law that is nearly word for word the same as a Federal Law about checking IDs in an incident of being pulled over - that same law applies applies to everyone in the US. So why be mad at Arizon at all?
GP
Because the people who passed the law have an "R" after their name. Had Obama come out and started making DHS enforce the laws on the Fed books that are even more strict than Arizona law, people would hail it as a bold move and lick the sweat off his balls for the healing properties.
DAMMIT HOUSTON!! STOP MAKING ME LAUGH! We are on OPPOSITE SIDES of the political spectrum here and I am not allowed to find anything you say funny!!!
|
|
DAMMIT HOUSTON!! STOP MAKING ME LAUGH! We are on OPPOSITE SIDES of the political spectrum here and I am not allowed to find anything you say funny!!!My question is why is everyone so upset about a State Law that is nearly word for word the same as a Federal Law about checking IDs in an incident of being pulled over - that same law applies applies to everyone in the US. So why be mad at Arizon at all?
GP
Because the people who passed the law have an "R" after their name. Had Obama come out and started making DHS enforce the laws on the Fed books that are even more strict than Arizona law, people would hail it as a bold move and lick the sweat off his balls for the healing properties.
You know I do these things just for you, right?
;)
Really because I can't see how fundamentally they could be further apart. Governments aren't private entities and your if your argument is what right do they have to come camp out here, your argument can be extended to say we should all be kicked out of the country unless we have native american blood in our system.Fundamentally they are the same thing, the fact that you can't make this connection is very telling. What right do I have to come into your home and start camping out? What right does someone from another country have to invade and set up camp? If I go around and mow people's yards on your street for $20 a yard, does that make it ok for me to barge into your home?Actually if you aren't hurting anything or stealing my stuff, I have no problem with you passing through my property, but yeah, lets equate national borders with personal property because they are the exact same thing. Exactly, not a hint of difference.I can trespass on your property with no consequences. Remember you don't understand borders, thus the concept of trespassing is beyond your ken.Um I'm pretty sure that they pay for things and work for a living, if they're stealing, that's different. I'm not advocating getting rid of all laws. But if we enabled anyone who wanted to just come work and enjoy the benefits of our nation and had a tax system that could actually collect from them (once again like the fair tax). Then what horrible thing are they doing that we have to prevent? being mexican? is that really so horrible?I don't get borders, I don't get border policy.Cool. Let me know where you live. Next time I'm in the area, I'll storm in, eat your food, sleep on your bed, and clog your toilet. You can feel free to call me Gold***cks.
Sorry, your logic fails incredibly. The native american nations do not control the US. On the other hand, maybe the problem is you actually reside in an alternate reality where the native american nations do in fact control the US. What are specifications of your alternate universe transponder, it might be very interesting to study.
Can you only interact with this universe by the internet?
Can you transport material from your universe to this one?
Can it be living material?
Really, it is incredibly fascinating to meet someone from a real alternate universe.
|
|
He's not to blame. He's just trying to make a buck. Just like the cheap labor he's hiring.
The person who's to blame is the guy who is ignoring the minimum wage laws so that he can hire more people to do the same amount of work quicker. He's the one that should be forced to walk through a mine field because he's not only breaking the law, he's taking advantage of desperate people.
Oh okay, so it's okay that He's breaking laws, the only laws we care about are the ones that keep the illegals from ruining our country.
I just wanted to make sure I understood the difference between "they're breaking our laws and that's not okay" for the two different people. Aparently, its okay to break the law if your from this country and out to make a quick buck, I got it. Excuse me while I rob a bank, it's okay because I'm native and I'm just trying to make a quick buck.
He's not to blame. He's just trying to make a buck. Just like the cheap labor he's hiring.
The person who's to blame is the guy who is ignoring the minimum wage laws so that he can hire more people to do the same amount of work quicker. He's the one that should be forced to walk through a mine field because he's not only breaking the law, he's taking advantage of desperate people.Oh okay, so it's okay that He's breaking laws, the only laws we care about are the ones that keep the illegals from ruining our country.
I just wanted to make sure I understood the difference between "they're breaking our laws and that's not okay" for the two different people. Aparently, its okay to break the law if your from this country and out to make a quick buck, I got it. Excuse me while I rob a bank, it's okay because I'm native and I'm just trying to make a quick buck.
I think I've said this before, but I think this is the crux of the problem here. We have a very serious set of rules and laws for hiring forign laborers in this country, but it seems that the penalties for breaking this law only apply to the workers themselves. Everyone seems to give those that hire these people a free pass, or worse yet, punish them only when there is something to be gained from it politically, economically or socially.
DAMMIT HOUSTON!! STOP MAKING ME LAUGH! We are on OPPOSITE SIDES of the political spectrum here and I am not allowed to find anything you say funny!!!My question is why is everyone so upset about a State Law that is nearly word for word the same as a Federal Law about checking IDs in an incident of being pulled over - that same law applies applies to everyone in the US. So why be mad at Arizon at all?
GP
Because the people who passed the law have an "R" after their name. Had Obama come out and started making DHS enforce the laws on the Fed books that are even more strict than Arizona law, people would hail it as a bold move and lick the sweat off his balls for the healing properties.
You know I do these things just for you, right?
;)
TAP IT INTO MY VEINS!!!
|
|
He's not to blame. He's just trying to make a buck. Just like the cheap labor he's hiring.
The person who's to blame is the guy who is ignoring the minimum wage laws so that he can hire more people to do the same amount of work quicker. He's the one that should be forced to walk through a mine field because he's not only breaking the law, he's taking advantage of desperate people.Oh okay, so it's okay that He's breaking laws, the only laws we care about are the ones that keep the illegals from ruining our country.
I just wanted to make sure I understood the difference between "they're breaking our laws and that's not okay" for the two different people. Aparently, its okay to break the law if your from this country and out to make a quick buck, I got it. Excuse me while I rob a bank, it's okay because I'm native and I'm just trying to make a quick buck.
Well, lastknightleft, again, if the Federal Government were enforcing the laws on the Federal books that are even stricter than Arizona's laws, people who hire illegals would face prison times and stiff fines.
And your bank robbing analogy isn't far off. Apparently, the soft on immigration crowd's argument is "well, I haven't been affected by it, so it's cool". Well, I've never been shot in the head, so I don't see what the big deal is if anyone else has been. Didn't affect me...
|
|
Sorry, your logic fails incredibly.
Your right your logic of A national border is the same as personal property is much more logical then my
At one point a bunch of white people came and started camping out and using the land when it was controlled by the native americans.
You're right, your logic is impeccable and mine is just silly, no way they're just two dissenting opinions. I forgot how Nations are exactly the same as individuals on a fundamental level. Please forgive me for dissenting with logic not nearly as thought out and concise as yours.
|
|
He's not to blame. He's just trying to make a buck. Just like the cheap labor he's hiring.
The person who's to blame is the guy who is ignoring the minimum wage laws so that he can hire more people to do the same amount of work quicker. He's the one that should be forced to walk through a mine field because he's not only breaking the law, he's taking advantage of desperate people.Oh okay, so it's okay that He's breaking laws, the only laws we care about are the ones that keep the illegals from ruining our country.
I just wanted to make sure I understood the difference between "they're breaking our laws and that's not okay" for the two different people. Aparently, its okay to break the law if your from this country and out to make a quick buck, I got it. Excuse me while I rob a bank, it's okay because I'm native and I'm just trying to make a quick buck.
Well, lastknightleft, again, if the Federal Government were enforcing the laws on the Federal books that are even stricter than Arizona's laws, people who hire illegals would face prison times and stiff fines.
Right, and if they were enforcing the laws on the books then the guy who's hiring would be punished as well.
Look, I live in FL, I more than a lot of people can say they've been effected by illegal imigration, but that has nothing to do with the fact that we could just as easily reform the laws to make all imigration easy and meaningless, as we could to make it more draconian.
What reason do we need to keep people out if we fix our tax system so that they pay into it like everyone else?
|
|
Oh okay, so it's okay that He's breaking laws, the only laws we care about are the ones that keep the illegals from ruining our country.
I just wanted to make sure I understood the difference between "they're breaking our laws and that's not okay" for the two different people. Aparently, its okay to break the law if your from this country and out to make a quick buck, I got it. Excuse me while I rob a bank, it's okay because I'm native and I'm just trying to make a quick buck.
lol. I have no problem with people crossing borders or with the people who hire them.
Well, lastknightleft, again, if the Federal Government were enforcing the laws on the Federal books that are even stricter than Arizona's laws, people who hire illegals would face prison times and stiff fines.
And your bank robbing analogy isn't far off. Apparently, the soft on immigration crowd's argument is "well, I haven't been affected by it, so it's cool". Well, I've never been shot in the head, so I don't see what the big deal is if anyone else has been. Didn't affect me...
There you go again. Yes, everyone who doesn't agree with your position on illegal immigration enforcement is completely selfish and irrational.
You're capable of better; sometimes you even achieve it.
This is not one of those times.
just a quick response to a few posts,
HD you are an evil, evil man for even makeing me think about obamas balls let alone the sweaty nut sack remark because MY mind naturally took it to another strange and dark place wondering if the president has a scrotum ball or a set of low hangers. I can only hope my description now disturbs you as much as it does me.
Lastknightleft, Again we all pretty much agree with your fai tax assesment and I for one would support it but it won't stop the illegals until some form of punishment or danger is in place.
Thee reason we have to "keep people out" as you put it is because we as a nation have a finite amount of resources and by allowing evryone that wants to to live here the resources go away very quickly, more quickly than can be replaced. We as americans are very enviromentally aware and have been takeing steps for over a century to insure we leave something for the next generations over population will destroy that.
As a personal aside the whole american indian example is getting old, if we hadn't done it another european piower would have. Can you imagine napolean rebuilding his army in the americas. The indians are better off by the U.S. granting them reservations than total genocide that would most likely have come from any other power of that age.
|
|
Well, lastknightleft, again, if the Federal Government were enforcing the laws on the Federal books that are even stricter than Arizona's laws, people who hire illegals would face prison times and stiff fines.
And your bank robbing analogy isn't far off. Apparently, the soft on immigration crowd's argument is "well, I haven't been affected by it, so it's cool". Well, I've never been shot in the head, so I don't see what the big deal is if anyone else has been. Didn't affect me...
There you go again. Yes, everyone who doesn't agree with your position on illegal immigration enforcement is completely selfish and irrational.
You're capable of better; sometimes you even achieve it.
This is not one of those times.
What's funny, is I'm not soft on enforcing the law, I'm just more about changing the law if it's non-sensical and obsolete. I'm all for enforcement, I'm just also for reform. And I think since it's already such a huge issue, it's time for reform.
My question is, if we can reform our tax system so that anyone who lives here pays into our system, then what threat is there from having a quick and easy immigration system, one that's focus is more on preventing those that want to harm our nation from coming in rather than those who merely want to work and live here and enjoy our rights and freedoms.
At one point a bunch of white people came and started camping out and using the land when it was controlled by the native americans.
Well those "white people" were given legal right to do so by their home country. Are you suggesting that the people immigrating from countries other than the US are given legal right to do so from their home countries? If so, maybe we should be seeking legal or military responses to said countries. Also, many of these native americans (I find the classification strange, if you are born in the US, you are not a "native" american?, but descendants of people who immigrated over a land bridge from asian, are?) nations actively tried to KILL the "white people" (now I have Eddie Murphy's "kill the white people" running through my mind, thanks). So I guess that means we should be stationing shooters on the board and killing any of the invaders, because according to you it is the same situation. Wow, and I thought Steven was pretty cold-blooded.
Also, I get the impression that you are saying you are not from another reality where the "native" american nations control the US. How sad. :.(
At one point a bunch of white people came and started camping out and using the land when it was controlled by the native americans.Well those "white people" were given legal right to do so by their home country. Are you suggesting that the people immigrating from countries other than the US are given legal right to do so from their home countries? If so, maybe we should be seeking legal or military responses to said countries. Also, many of these native americans (I find the classification strange, if you are born in the US, you are not a "native" american?, but descendants of people who immigrated over a land bridge from asian, are?) nations actively tried to KILL the "white people" (now I have Eddie Murphy's "kill the white people" running through my mind, thanks). So I guess that means we should be stationing shooters on the board and killing any of the invaders, because according to you it is the same situation. Wow, and I thought Steven was pretty cold-blooded.
Also, I get the impression that you are saying you are not from another reality where the "native" american nations control the US. How sad. :.(
Compliment glady accepted pres. Thanks.
|
|
Lastknightleft, Again we all pretty much agree with your fai tax assesment and I for one would support it but it won't stop the illegals until some form of punishment or danger is in place.
Thee reason we have to "keep people out" as you put it is because we as a nation have a finite amount of resources and by allowing evryone that wants to to live here the resources go away very quickly, more quickly than can be replaced. We as americans are very enviromentally aware and have been takeing steps for over a century to insure we leave something for the next generations over population will destroy that.
A okay you believe in a malthusian economic theory. See I don't, I don't think we have such finite resources in a global economy. And if we do have such finite resources then we'd need more than just immigration laws. We'd need laws on breeding too, if immigration is a threat then so are families that have 14 children, even if they're capable of supporting them, eventually we're going to outgrow our finite output.
The fact is there are limits on resources, but we are no where near the level where that is an issue, and we have how many millions of illegal imigrants as it is, and aparently our resources are handling them even though they aren't paying into the system. How does that change if they suddenly are paying into the system and we suddenly have more with which to obtain resources.
|
|
At one point a bunch of white people came and started camping out and using the land when it was controlled by the native americans.Well those "white people" were given legal right to do so by their home country. Are you suggesting that the people immigrating from countries other than the US are given legal right to do so from their home countries? If so, maybe we should be seeking legal or military responses to said countries. Also, many of these native americans (I find the classification strange, if you are born in the US, you are not a "native" american?, but descendants of people who immigrated over a land bridge from asian, are?) nations actively tried to KILL the "white people" (now I have Eddie Murphy's "kill the white people" running through my mind, thanks). So I guess that means we should be stationing shooters on the board and killing any of the invaders, because according to you it is the same situation. Wow, and I thought Steven was pretty cold-blooded.
Also, I get the impression that you are saying you are not from another reality where the "native" american nations control the US. How sad. :.(
Really, me saying your argument could be extended to cover a different group of people doing something similar (or are we going back to using the words fundamentally the same that you were eager to throw around) is me saying any of the words you just put into my mouth, funny, because I'm not the one who started claiming people had "faulty logic". Yet it's funny how it's okay for you to make comparisons between things that are similar but ridiculously different, but not me. So the rules we're working with here are, Pres-man can use analogies, but lastknightleft can't because then they're logical fallacies.
And i find it even funnier that apparently it's okay to mine the border with mines, yet the indians were a!!+++@s for trying to kill the people who were doing it to them, but it was okay for the white people because somewhere across the ocean said so.
And what's funny is from what I've read in this thread apparently illegal immigrant DO have the okay from their nation (that is if they're coming from mexico). So since we're busy putting words in each others mouths, you're completely for mexican illegal immigration because mexico condones it, therefore it's just like when white people came here and started taking lands from the indian tribes who owned the land, but used a different legal system than the british.
A okay you believe in a malthusian economic theory. See I don't, I don't think we have such finite resources in a global economy. And if we do have such finite resources then we'd need more than just immigration laws. We'd need laws on breeding too, if immigration is a threat then so are families that have 14 children, even if they're capable of supporting them, eventually we're going to outgrow our finite output.
Actually, most 1st world nations have very low birth rates. Yes, you do have the rare family with 14 kids (thanks mormons and catholics), but for each of those you have many more that don't have any children or only have 1 child. Now it might be a reason to out-law same-sex marriages, as those marriages are likely to want to create children when no child was "naturally" possible (two members of the same-species and same-sex typically can not produce offspring).
In fact, I just heard of recent NPR story where in a city China, people were allowed to have 2 children instead of the restricted 1. Funny thing is, many still only had 1 because having 2 children would dramatically reduce their standard of living. They would rather have a new car than a child.
Anyway, the population growth model isn't really that necessary in most of the developed world (and why do you hate same-sex couples so much anyway?).
|
|
A okay you believe in a malthusian economic theory. See I don't, I don't think we have such finite resources in a global economy. And if we do have such finite resources then we'd need more than just immigration laws. We'd need laws on breeding too, if immigration is a threat then so are families that have 14 children, even if they're capable of supporting them, eventually we're going to outgrow our finite output.Actually, most 1st world nations have very low birth rates. Yes, you do have the rare family with 14 kids (thanks mormons and catholics), but for each of those you have many more that don't have any children or only have 1 child. Now it might be a reason to out-law same-sex marriages, as those marriages are likely to want to create children when no child was "naturally" possible (two members of the same-species and same-sex typically can not produce offspring).
In fact, I just heard of recent NPR story where in a city China, people were allowed to have 2 children instead of the restricted 1. Funny thing is, many still only had 1 because having 2 children would dramatically reduce their standard of living. They would rather have a new car than a child.
Anyway, the population growth model isn't really that necessary in most of the developed world (and why do you hate same-sex couples so much anyway?).
Wow okay so we really are putting words in each others mouths, since I said in that statement that I don't believe in a theory of finite resources but that if I did, I would think that population control would be as important as imigration control. Apparently that's the same thing as being opposed to gay marraige because of an insane theory that doesn't bear out.
And what's hillarious is your apparent belief that without immigration our population level would stay the same/decrease despite all evidence to the contrary (even taking out imigration our population still increases every generation).
So what pres man is saying is that we should model ourselves after China because they've got things right (just trying to play this game by your rules)
A okay you believe in a malthusian economic theory. See I don't, I don't think we have such finite resources in a global economy. And if we do have such finite resources then we'd need more than just immigration laws. We'd need laws on breeding too, if immigration is a threat then so are families that have 14 children, even if they're capable of supporting them, eventually we're going to outgrow our finite output.Actually, most 1st world nations have very low birth rates. Yes, you do have the rare family with 14 kids (thanks mormons and catholics), but for each of those you have many more that don't have any children or only have 1 child. Now it might be a reason to out-law same-sex marriages, as those marriages are likely to want to create children when no child was "naturally" possible (two members of the same-species and same-sex typically can not produce offspring).
In fact, I just heard of recent NPR story where in a city China, people were allowed to have 2 children instead of the restricted 1. Funny thing is, many still only had 1 because having 2 children would dramatically reduce their standard of living. They would rather have a new car than a child.
Anyway, the population growth model isn't really that necessary in most of the developed world (and why do you hate same-sex couples so much anyway?).
Wow okay so we really are putting words in each others mouths, since I said in that statement that I don't believe in a theory of finite resources but that if I did, I would think that population control would be as important as imigration control. Apparently that's the same thing as being opposed to gay marraige because of an insane theory that doesn't bear out.
And what's hillarious is your apparent belief that without immigration our population level would stay the same/decrease despite all evidence to the contrary (even taking out imigration our population still increases every generation).
So what pres man is saying is that we should model ourselves after China because they've got things right (just trying to play this game by your rules)
Well China did come out of the financial meltdown in very good shape. Probably the best of any of the major countries of the world, so yeah, they are certainly doing some things right.
And yes there is evidence that in developed worlds, the birth rate would grow very slowly (I did say it was low birth rate) or reduce (as is the case with many of the european nations). So excluding immigration, these countries would have very little problem if resources were an issue. Of course the real problem for those countries is their social security systems, these systems are built on the idea of having more workers than retirees. With life expectancies increasing, and slow population growths or even population decays, these systems can not be maintained. They need to increase their works so they can gain tax revenue to support their systems.
And i find it even funnier that apparently it's okay to mine the border with mines, yet the indians were a##*&!%s for trying to kill the people who were doing it to them, but it was okay for the white people because somewhere across the ocean said so.
You were suggesting it was wrong for the US to defend its borders and then brought in the native americans (indians? really? how uncivilized of you). So if you are saying we are a-holes for defending our border then YOU are saying the native americans were a-holes for defending theirs.
And what's funny is from what I've read in this thread apparently illegal immigrant DO have the okay from their nation (that is if they're coming from mexico). So since we're busy putting words in each others mouths, you're completely for mexican illegal immigration because mexico condones it, therefore it's just like when white people came here and started taking lands from the indian tribes who owned the land, but used a different legal system than the british.
"Okay"? From a certain sense, yes. It is "legitimate". Of course in that case, if these other nations are supporting the invasion, then that really is an act of war, and we would have every "legitimate" right of killing the invaders and attacking these foreign nations. I personally don't believe these people have the authority of these foreign nations (how many have writs and deeds on their person granting them land in the nation they are authorized to invade?), so I don't think we have a current right to attack foreign governments. Still if some evidence did come out that there was official support, we have some legitimacy to take action against the foreign nation directly.
Permission from a foreign power doesn't justify invasion. It doesn't now, and it never has. So yeah, the Native Americans got screwed. Denying that is just silly. But I don't see the relevance.
Permission from a foreign power doesn't justify invasion. It doesn't now, and it never has. So yeah, the Native Americans got screwed. Denying that is just silly. But I don't see the relevance.
+1
Has this just turned into a thought experiment at this point?
Permission from a foreign power doesn't justify invasion. It doesn't now, and it never has. So yeah, the Native Americans got screwed. Denying that is just silly. But I don't see the relevance.
I'm not denying it. I think the Native americans were totally justified in trying to kill the invaders. They lost because they were dumb. If they had recognized the invasion for what it was and united all of their nations together, they could have easily have repelled the invaders. They didn't and waited too long and allow themselves to be divide and they lost. It is a shame, but you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
As for invasion not being justified, well people have a right to make things better for themselves and their relations. So the invaders have a right to invade, just as the defenders have a right to defend. Who wins ultimately is all that matters, as Ashe says, "Good? Bad? I'm the one with the gun."
If we are stupid enough to rollover and let the invasion continue with no efforts to stop it, then we deserve to go down in history as the native american nations did.
Has this just turned into a thought experiment at this point?
throws a few random thoughts into a beaker to see what will happen
So yeah, the Native Americans got screwed. Denying that is just silly. But I don't see the relevance.I'm with you, but I was just playing along with the put words in each others mouth game
For what it's worth, thanks for fighting the good fight, but Tindall seems to just say stuff to get a reaction (let's murder people for immmigrating illegally!), and Pres simply can't be reasoned with on political matters. In fact, I believe he finds the very idea of concessions of any sort very uncomfortable. The more you try in earnest, the more he will dig in. I'm not going down that road again, so you're on your own. :(
For what it's worth, thanks for fighting the good fight, but Tindall seems to just say stuff to get a reaction (let's murder people for immmigrating illegally!), and Pres simply can't be reasoned with on political matters. In fact, I believe he finds the very idea of concessions of any sort very uncomfortable. The more you try in earnest, the more he will dig in. I'm not going down that road again, so you're on your own. :(So yeah, the Native Americans got screwed. Denying that is just silly. But I don't see the relevance.I'm with you, but I was just playing along with the put words in each others mouth game
Sorry that I fail to mindlessly parrot your views back to you. :P
Sorry that I fail to mindlessly parrot your views back to you. :P
I'm not. That way I wouldn't learn anything.
I believe you'd find it useful to make an effort to think less in terms of "us" and "them." The world isn't locked in some sort of zero sum game pitting us against everyone else. In fact, everyone acting in their own best interest is often collectively harmful.
I realize you have a great deal invested in protecting your position. I'm not going to try to argue you off of it, largely because I don't have a position in which I'm so heavily invested. But surely you can see that comparing illegal immigration to an all-out invasion is hyperbole? It also villifies a group of people guilty of doing little more than responding to incentives in a rational manner. Responding in the same manner, in fact, that the vast majority of people on our side of the border would respond, should the tables be turned.
Think about it. Or, as I suspect is more likely, don't. But I've made the effort. :)
Sorry that I fail to mindlessly parrot your views back to you. :PI'm not. That way I wouldn't learn anything.
I believe you'd find it useful to make an effort to think less in terms of "us" and "them." The world isn't locked in some sort of zero sum game pitting us against everyone else. In fact, everyone acting in their own best interest is often collectively harmful.
I realize you have a great deal invested in protecting your position. I'm not going to try to argue you off of it, largely because I don't have a position in which I'm so heavily invested. But surely you can see that comparing illegal immigration to an all-out invasion is hyperbole? It also villifies a group of people guilty of doing little more than responding to incentives in a rational manner. Responding in the same manner, in fact, that the vast majority of people on our side of the border would respond, should the tables be turned.
But you would also have to agree that villifing people who want to protect their borders is just as irrational. Especially given, as you say, how would the other group be behaving if the tables are turned. If we compare the illegal immigration enforcement between the two nations playing in the situation, Mexico and the US, we see that the US, even with the AZ law, is much more "humane"? Any suggestion otherwise just comes across as irrational and mindless.
But you would also have to agree that villifing people who want to protect their borders is just as irrational. Especially given, as you say, how would the other group be behaving if the tables are turned. If we compare the illegal immigration enforcement between the two nations playing in the situation, Mexico and the US, we see that the US, even with the AZ law, is much more "humane"? Any suggestion otherwise just comes across as irrational and mindless.
Absolutely. Mexico is xenophobic and seems to have little respect for human rights. We hold ourselves to a much higher standard, and I am proud of that.
And yes, villifying someone simply because they want to protect our borders is irrational and unfair. Some people have very good reasons for their position; others, not so much, but the same can (and should) be said of any group, be they liberal conservative, etc.
I just don't get the anger I often see directed at the immigrants themselves.
I'm also against the AZ law, not because of possible effect on illegal immigrants (who should legally be deported), but because of possible effect on citizens. No one should be forced to prove their citizenship simply because of their appearance/sound/dress. I know the law prohibits racial profiling, but I just don't buy that in the real world, profiling won't occur. If the law required everyone who interacts with the police to prove citizenship, then my problem with it would disappear.
There is also the issue of usurping Federal authority, though I agree that the feds have completely dropped the ball.
And for the record, I'm not saying LastKnight was being any less dogmatic and inflexible; you guys were pretty stuck in a rut. It's just that I've butted heads with you before.
