Federal Government To Round Up Illegal Immigrants

[mactbone]

Well, as I said before, mostly these people are employed in work Americans won't do, so we aren't deporting them in order to make more jobs available for Americans. Successfully cracking down on illegal immigrants would dry up available labor resources, and thus cause a rise in the price of labor, and since the Rebublican party goes apoplectic at the thought of paying someone more than they possibly have to, this cannot be the reason. However, if they unsuccessfully crack down on illegal immigrants, or crack down just enough, they can artificially depress the price of labor by making those who remain more desperate and thus more willing to accept any wage. This then depresses the price of labor throught the bottom rungs of society. This increases poverty, which increases crime, which increases the state's response to crime, which increases your taxes.

What a bunch of bull****. Yeah, you know, with this depression and layoffs, there's just NOONE to do the work

In my hometown, factory's are the main source of jobs. We also are having a problem with illegal immigration, I'm not kidding when I say that at least once a month, there's a story in the paper about the INS raiding a factory and having to round up illegal immigrants. And I live in Northern Indiana.

Over this past summer there were numerous layoffs at factories, are you going to sit there and say that the people who are legal and live there wouldn't take just about any job that may be held by an illegal?

Ramo, quit trying to impose your definition of a state on the democratic majority. The democratic majority is what we follow.

Illegal immigrants can, and sometimes do take advantage of various benifits, by being illegal. First, they are entitled to all labor laws that are present in the US, and their employers are subjected to all US health and safety standards. Before you say that these should be the rights of all people, remember, they could get their own government to change. (I said could, so don't argue that they can't, there's always a possibility) Second, who gets screwed when they crash into someone? The legal person, because they have insurance, the immigrant can just leave the scene and hope they're not caught. They may even recieve education benifits.

About language, didn't every other immigrant population take the time to learn english? Why is the new round of immigration not taking the time? My ancestors learned English. It also takes tax money from me because I must now pay for teachers that can speak Spanish, which will mean they will ask for more money. I have to pay for new school, and administrative materials that will have both English and Spanish. Why should I have to pay, while their kids never learn English? In all probability they're going to have to learn English at some point, better sooner than later. Too bad some people can't realize that.

[Ramo]

Ramo, quit trying to impose your definition of a state on the democratic majority.

What does this mean? Are you saying that democracies are not states?

The democratic majority is what we follow.

Uhh.. no. Our system of government is a representative republic, not a "democratic majority." Remember that whole Florida thing?

Illegal immigrants can, and sometimes do take advantage of various benifits,

I never said otherwise.

by being illegal.

What?

First, they are entitled to all labor laws that are present in the US, and their employers are subjected to all US health and safety standards.

And these benefits are at the expense of private businesses, not the gov't funds.

Before you say that these should be the rights of all people, remember, they could get their own government to change. )

It sure ain't likely.

[qutoe]I said could, so don't argue that they can't, there's always a possibility[/quote]

Quite literally, everything is possible.

Second, who gets screwed when they crash into someone? The legal person, because they have insurance, the immigrant can just leave the scene and hope they're not caught.

Why can't the legal person leave the scene and hope he's not caught? Not everyone has insurance.

They may even recieve education benifits.

Note that I said federal benefits.

About language, didn't every other immigrant population take the time to learn english? Why is the new round of immigration not taking the time?

There's a huge Hispanic population in many areas of the US. They don't need to learn English that badly.

My ancestors learned English.

Good for them. I don't see your point, though.

It also takes tax money from me because I must now pay for teachers that can speak Spanish, which will mean they will ask for more money. I have to pay for new school, and administrative materials that will have both English and Spanish. Why should I have to pay, while their kids never learn English? In all probability they're going to have to learn English at some point, better sooner than later. Too bad some people can't realize that.

Have you ever thought that getting English-speaking teachers costs those who speak other languages their tax money? Why should they have to pay for your language?

[mactbone]

Do you mean to say that the hispanic immgration is so high right now as to overshadow any other immgration in US history?

Why should they have to pay for your language?

Who moved into whose country? Last time I checked the vast majority of people speak English, and since the democratic majority rules (if you bring up Florida, why not just recount the other states, IIRC, some of them were close and after further review, may have recounted in Bush's favor), they should learn the language.

If the entire state of Indiana moved to Spain, should they be expected to make accomadations for us?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo
Where? I know the law perfectly well. I was asking for the justification of it.
Morality is entirely relevant to every position. Even your Machiavellian nationalistic real-politik philosophy is a form of morality, whether or not you put it in those terms.
That's not an analagous question. This is about state coercion, not economic philosophy.
So you're saying that the state has the right to do anything it wants on its territory. Why is that so? You're not explaining anything.
BTW, I was wondering the implication of what you call the rights of the state? What does it gain by having the right to do something?
Why do you not believe that states have the right to massacre peaceful political dissidents, but do have the right to control its borders?
To prove that your position is totally inconsistent.
Your point being...? You haven't explained why a state has the right to exist.
If the state controls the movement of certain citizens, it certainly is not acting in a manner beneficial to those citizens. In economic terms, most citizens. Doesn't your ideal state then no longer become state, by your definition?
I would consider that true for only very few states (real definition, not your definition). Under your definition, AFAIK, the US is not a state.
Illegal residents certainly are not parasitic. They pay taxes, but get few, if any, benefits. In fact, the opposite is true; citizens are parasitic off the illegal residents.
But if the state does not allow them in, it ceases to act in the mutual interest of its citizens, and no longer becomes a state.
I've never signed any such contract with the US gov't, nor do I plan to.
Well, you just redefined "state!" How can I argue with that?
What do you consider to be states? Colombia? Turkey? Iran? Israel? The US? Are any of these states?
You'll have to read up on your history too. The Bill of Rights, for example, was instituted as checks against federal governments over state governments. It didn't apply to citizens until decades after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Similarly, the Magna Carta was primarily a check on the King over the nobility. These and similar institutions changed to ensure the power of the state, not for the benefit of its citizens.
Why do you assert non-citizens have these rights, but they do not have the right to enter in contracts with citizens?
And why is the state not breaking its contract when coercing citizens (i.e. creating immigration restrictions)?
No, it does not depend. Either, the state has the right to do something or not.

I think that you have gotten mixed up with my definition of an ideal state, and a real state.

All states are formed by contract for the mutual benifit of their citizens, it does not mean that this occurs.

BTW, for you information, I consider all sorts of things states, includining corporations, businesses, families, towns, ect.

States have the right to exist because their parts have the right to make agreements together.

See, the citizens might appear to have less rights, but they actually have more since the state enables new options they did not have before.

I think part of the problem is that what I am refering to as states and what you are are two different things, and my discriptions of how states come into existence happened so long ago in most cases (most current states are formations of previous ones) that we have no actual recordings of the events.

See the state only has to act in what is the citizens mutual interest as those in charge understand it (and sometiems the state does not act in the citizens mutual interest, those states end up dying), which could be different then their actual mutual interest

see, you are simplifying things to much

you were probably signed into the contract by your parents, who signed yo in based on the contract you had with them

all are states (I consider corp. to be the primary agreeser states against more traditional ones like the US)

states can have in their make up other states, that is the case with the US (and the people (or states) made a contract together)

non-citizens have the right to enter into contract with citizens, but states have the right to block that because of the mutual interst of their citizens

the state has the right to prune off bits of itself

once we get to reasons, we get to the direction of the state, and that is on the hands of the citizens

I was giving examples of wars and whether the citizens involved were moral or immoral

hopefully this has made your understanding clearer

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

Do you mean to say that the hispanic immgration is so high right now as to overshadow any other immgration in US history?

Where did I say that? I don't have much of an idea either way. In absolute numbers, it's probably the largest period of immigration in the US history. What's your point?

Who moved into whose country?

The English (and other assorted European) moved into Amerindians' countries. Maybe we should all be learning Choctaw or some other native language instead.

Last time I checked the vast majority of people speak English, and since the democratic majority rules

And in the regions where Hispanics are a significant portion of the population the "democratic majority" says they want Spanish in their schools. You're tripping on your own assertions.

if you bring up Florida, why not just recount the other states, IIRC, some of them were close and after further review, may have recounted in Bush's favor

That's irrelevant, even if that's true. It's entirely possible for a candidate to win the electoral vote, while losing the popular vote. Democratic majority does not rule.

they should learn the language.

I agree. They should. But I'm not going to force them into doing it.

If the entire state of Indiana moved to Spain, should they be expected to make accomadations for us?

They should, yes.

[Ramo]

D'oh, didn't see your post, Jon. I'll get to it tonight.

[axi]

Illegal immigrants? There is no such thing!

The only thing that's illegal about immigrants is denying them their human rights.

See what is happening at the french side of the English Channel or at the Woomera concentration camp, in the Australian desert.

[Shi Huangdi]

If we were to be perfectly consitent with the principles of freedom, we would have to let in everyone who wants to cross the border with a nuclear weapon- because we don't know they will use it and it is their property.

Ideally I would like to see an open border and citizenship available to all willing to be loyal to this country. But we simply cannot during a time of war allow illegal immigrants who are from countries which strongly sympathize with Al-Qaeda to roam about illegaly.

[Jon Miller]

bump in the hope the Ramo replies

Jon Miller
- first good political diologue in over a month

[Ramo]

I think that you have gotten mixed up with my definition of an ideal state, and a real state.

I wasn't aware you've stated a definition of your ideal state.

Nonetheless, I'm referring to actualy states, not these "ideal states" that exist in a fantasy land.

All states are formed by contract for the mutual benifit of their citizens, it does not mean that this occurs.

:confused" Do you mean "All ideal states are formed...."

BTW, for you information, I consider all sorts of things states, includining corporations, businesses, families, towns, ect.

Can we restrict the argument to governmental bodies? When I refer to a state, I don't mean a family or any other voluntary organization. Do you still stand by your assertions in this case?

States have the right to exist because their parts have the right to make agreements together.

I didn't make any agreement with you or any other American to take away my freedoms.

See, the citizens might appear to have less rights, but they actually have more since the state enables new options they did not have before.

It coerces people into doing what the government wants. That takes away, not gives people options.

I think part of the problem is that what I am refering to as states and what you are are two different things, and my discriptions of how states come into existence happened so long ago in most cases (most current states are formations of previous ones) that we have no actual recordings of the events.

If we're talking governments not families or any other things you call "states," we have ample anthropological and historical evidence. Again, primarily states (again, defined as a coercive organization) were formed when one person or group was able to gain dominance over others.

See the state only has to act in what is the citizens mutual interest as those in charge understand it

States invariably act in the interest of the ruling class. People don't suddenly become altruistic once they achieve power.

(and sometiems the state does not act in the citizens mutual interest, those states end up dying)

Again, just about every state that has existed does not act in the mutual interest of its people. And they're still here.

see, you are simplifying things to much

I'm simplifying things too much!? You're saying that all rulers are altruistic!

you were probably signed into the contract by your parents,

Where do they get the authority to take away my freedom as an adult? And they haven't signed any such contract for me, either.

who signed yo in based on the contract you had with them

I've never made any contract ceding my rights to my parents. I obey them through my consent.

all are states (I consider corp. to be the primary agreeser states against more traditional ones like the US)

I was just wondering where you're getting this definition.

non-citizens have the right to enter into contract with citizens, but states have the right to block that because of the mutual interst of their citizens

Why do states have the right to act in what it thinks is the mutual interest of its citizens? States are coercive organizations, and do not deserve any rights.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked Dino: what's the implication of a state have the right to do something?

[quote]once we get to reasons, we get to the direction of the state, and that is on the hands of the citizens

I was giving examples of wars and whether the citizens involved were moral or immoral

What does the morality of an action have to do the right to that action? For example, I have the right to free speech (with some restrictions), regardless of whether you consider the speech moral or immoral.

hopefully this has made your understanding clearer

Not really.

[Ramo]

But we simply cannot during a time of war

How soon do you think this so-called "war on terror" will end?

allow illegal immigrants who are from countries which strongly sympathize with Al-Qaeda to roam about illegaly.

Why not? And why shouldn't we also lock up legal residents from countries that sympathize with Al-Qaeda to roam about? Why shouldn't we lock up everyone with a dark skin color? Why are those measures unnecessary in a "time of war," while locking up illegal immigrants is "necessary?"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MacTBone
First, they are entitled to all labor laws that are present in the US, and their employers are subjected to all US health and safety standards. Before you say that these should be the rights of all people, remember, they could get their own government to change. (I said could, so don't argue that they can't, there's always a possibility)

When they try and do that, we have them killed. I could list thousands of examples: but I'll stick to a handfull: Coca-Cola hiring death squads in Guatemala and Columbia to kill union activists; overthroing the government of Guatemala in 1954 because their government nationalized (with compensation) unused jungle owned by United Fruit; overthrowing the government of Chile, invading and overthrowing the Domincan Republic, waging a ten year terrorist war on Nicaragua, hand billions of dollars over to a murderous, drug-corrupted government in Columbia, and so on.