Ok, other than to proclaim that I'm "racist" or "nativist" or "whateverist" can I please here the actual legal/moral/whatever argument in favor of: (pick as many as you support)
a) open borders
b) amnesty for current lawbreakers (this includes lawbreakers who "have committed document fraud" [this is at the request of groups like CAUSA] or other laws such as tax evasion, perjury, etc)
c) an increase in legal immigration (this could be in the form of H1B visas or for low skilled laborers)
I am really looking for a cogent argument. "They pay taxes" is not going to cut it.
16 comments:
I have on occasion asked you direct questions about policy and issues -- no name-calling, no insults, without a hint of cynicism or paternalism -- and you have never given me a straight or serious answer. You've been spewing xenophobic bullshit for two years on this blog, while at the same time sitting by while your fans call people "faggots," relish in the thought of violence committed against innocents and even hint that violence may (and should) befall "American-hating" liberals who disagree with you while raising no protest that I've seen. Your horses have left the barn, Mr. Miglavs, and your credibility is shot, so spare us this sudden interest in listening politely to "cogent" arguments. It doesn't even pass the straight-face test.
uhhh, yeah..... whatever dude.
"faggots--- if the shoe fits!!!
"you have never given me a straight or serious answer."
Well, Let's see, if the truth hurts...GET A LIFE!
Question..need a straight answer, "WTF will a libber president do about global terror?
I cannot find one justifiable reason to support illegal immigration and illegal aliens. For illegal aliens, I support apprehension and deportation only.
By the way illegal aliens are not the only ones threatening to take the jobs of the legal American citizens. The mechanized and technologial automation of jobs that were once done by hand are now replaced by machines. If humans are still needed, companies are outsourcing the work or plants to other countries.
Oh yeah, Freightliner's last truck will roll off the lines in Portland at the end of March. Meanwhile, Freightliner is constructing a $300 million plant in Saltillo, Mexico, and manufacture trucks there because it's cheaper. The Mexico plant will begin production in 2009.
Another Freightliner plant will continue to run in North Carolina.
"Oh yeah, Freightliner's last truck will roll off the lines in Portland at the end of March. Meanwhile, Freightliner is constructing a $300 million plant in Saltillo, Mexico, and manufacture trucks there because it's cheaper. The Mexico plant will begin production in 2009."
This is the product of the economic system you all argue is the best economic system in the world. Regardless, globalization is imminent.
Anon 12:12, I have to agree with the globalization part. If you read Sunday's Oregonian's business section, you would notice the various countries the Boeing 787 parts are manufactured. North America, Europe, and Asia.
It sucks but its happening.
Actually, it's NOT a result of the economic system we, as Americans, have traditionally believed in. The exportation of industries, jobs and labor are a result of attempts to meddle with that system... attempts to regulate wages, regulate safety, place higher tax burdens on the productive, &tc. if you want to be intellectually honest about this.
Then again, given the state of the world, I figure once the unions hit the countries where industries are moving, they'll come back.
I asked this question on the illegal alien crime post. To the bullshit police: I am not Daniel. Please answer why you want open borders and amnesty?
There are not many answers here.
May I suggest that you socialists are hurting your concept of a just society with your desires for open borders.
Capitalists want open borders and amnesty because it makes it more competitive for labor,ie lower wages, less bargaining power, more easily replaced.
And it makes it less competitive for capital,ie more consumers for products and services--Bank of America anyone.
Open borders overwhelms the government's capacity for social services and at the end of the day the government collaspes or just doesn't protect all people from capitalist excess.
You lefties who want power, beware, because when capitalists want open borders; it isn't because they have seen the socialist light.
Big business laughs at socialist's desire for open borders and amnesty.
Big business knows the consequences of its desires.
Socialists do you?
Bjorr:
If you have open borders, you no longer have illegal aliens and illegal immigration. Someone's legal status can be changed with the simple signing of a document.
We already have the depression of wages and competition for jobs. If we open the borders, it will legalize those workers and they will benefit form unionization and job and workplace protections. Part of the savings is that they work under the table. Make them legal, and they have legal protections and won't be unwilling to avail themselves of those protections for fear of deportation.
I think for all nations to thrive, they need an influx of peoples and ideas. If this country's strength has been as a melting pot, why change what has historically worked so well? What if we had closed the borders to the all the peoples who have moved here, think of what a drab country we would live in.
Even as horrible and hideous slavery was, think of the benefits we got from the knowledge brought with the slaves. We got more than just their forced labor. This country wasn't just made by white men from Europe.
Will there be problems when cultures clash? Absolutely, however the benefits gained far outweight the problems.
Opening borders will allow free up money we otherwise spend trying to deport people who, in the majority, are simply trying to feed their families and better themselves. Make people criminals, and they will act like criminals.
There are two great reasons for open borders etc.
1) If we get rid of illegals the cost of our goods will go up. We will then no longer be able to side step the issue that we have so many regulations that we are no longer competative in a lot of industries, agriculture being a good example. The people who love endless regulation wont like that too much.
2) The current influx of immigrants is unlike any other, not in terms of who they are but what they meet here. Among other things, a vast system to keep them as dependant on government as possible. This grows votes for those who wish to grow government.
There. Thats it. Everyone knows it, I just happened to say it.
No r huse, not everyone knows it. It happens to be a belief of yours, but it is definitely not shared by everyone.
What I would like to see is evidence that what you argue, about support for open borders is a deliberate ploy by those who wish to grow government.
If you want an unfettered and unregulated economy, take a look at how well that worked for a majority of people in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.
If you think you can trust Corporations to put your well being, health or community before profits, then you haven't read any economic history of this country.
If you want to shrink the size of government and regulation, shrink the size of corporations. Otherwise, there will be no one to protect the public from them. You should do a little research and find out what the Founding Fathers thought about Corporations. They thought they should be very limited and very closely regulated.
Those nations with issues need to fix their own social and economic issues. These people of those countries can enjoy a free and prosperous life, not fleeing to the United States and having a 21-person family home that will burn down instantly in a fire.
The United States just doesn't have the room or the infrastructure for 6 billion people on this planet for every nation that has issues.
Maybe if other countries didn't have such tight socialistic and dictatorship control over its people, there wouldn't be an illegal alien/illegal immigration issue.
The United States is not a "free for all" nation and have everyone in the world come on in as they please.
And yet Bjdorr, that is exactly what this country has done in the past. No one is arguing that the entire planet should settle in the United States. Nor do I think that is a realistic extrapolation of what would happen.
It would be nice if other nations had the capacity to take care of their own. Unfortunatley, people need to eat and survive in the now, not down the road a piece.
However, the argument isn't that we necessarily are doing it to just help other people. What I'm arguing is that much of the strength and genius of this country is a result of allowing others to settle in large numbers. And frequently they did so for very basic economic reasons.
Italians came to this country to work, and frequently made several trips back and forth. Not only that, but they sent back money to Italy so that relatives could buy land. Not so very different from what we see happening with hispanics today.
Wait a second there Robert. Are you actually saying that you think that most people do not understand that the various government agencies that aid illegals have a vested interest in insuring a continuing influx of them? I think most people understand that very well. In addition most people are aware that business, particularly agriculture loves the cheap labor because it makes US products more competitively priced. The idea that not everyone knows this is inane.
As for the corporations stuff you are sort of off on a tangent. I don't know where I said I had this great trust in them or that I wanted an unregulated economy. Where exactly did I say I thought I could trust them with my health or well being?
Oh wait a second, I got it, that was to set up a straw man so then you could go on to either imply I hadn't read any economic history or to bolster the perception of your education level.
Zounds - That's kinda shallow but it certainly did give me a smile.
Moving on -
>If you want to shrink the size of government and regulation, shrink the size of corporations. Otherwise, there will be no one to protect the public from them.
This would be true if the basic assumption made sense. Why in the world can government be shrunk only in the corporate oversight sector, a relatively minor part of the budget? At something like 60% of the budget, why wouldnt one start with HHS? In addition, since I own a corporation and most US citizens are stockholders in corporations, the underlying assumption is extremely offensive. I really view your basic premise, that as a corporation I am preying upon the citizens of this country and that they need to be protected from me as absurd.
I was reacting to your comment about regulation of corps. It was overly broad, and all regulations need to be periodically reviewed to see if they still serve a useful function. My apologies for not being more precise. I get sloppy sometimes, and I was also reacting in part to the "we don't need no stinkin' regulations" crowd.
I'm sure that most corporations, especially the small ones, are good neighbors in their communities. However, it only takes a few bad acts by the big ones to do some major harm. Regulations are a necessary evil. There are simply too many examples of respected corporations from the auto industry to the pharmaceutical industry cutting corners for the sake of profit for me to believe otherwise.
I'm saying that most people don't believe that we allow illegals in just to just to swell the bureaucracy. It smacks of a conspiracy theory, and you're going to have to have some good solid evidence that administrators, on down, of social service agencies explicitly or implicitly desire illegal aliens simply to keep their jobs and build little empires (this is a paraphrase of what I believe you're arguing).
Gentlemen:
You have engaged in a spirited discussion in a principled way.
You are to be congratulated.
Some thoughts on your discussion.
Robert: You are wrong on your subsequent comment to mine for the following reasons:
First, you will always need boder enforcement because of criminal elements, ie, drugs, undesirable criminals, and national security concerns. We will always need to deport criminals that are not citizens. Those guilty of murder, rape, robbery, theft.
Second, Robert you say wages are already depressed. I got news for you, if we open our borders, you aint seen nothing yet. Any job that is primarily physical would be knocked down to $10 an hour and the blue collar middle class would suffer. anybody starting out at minimum wage would be hurt because their prospects would be limited to $10 an hour.
In other words: the rich and the rest, just like we see now in Mexico.
Thirdly, you write as if we have no immigration now. Instead the truth is we allow a million people a year to immigrate legally, each and every year. So we already have plenty of people coming to America with ideas and energy.
Fourth, history does not lie. Societies, cultures, and nations decline. They decline mostly from a lack of cohesiveness, people simply don't agree enough on what unites that society, culture, or nation to keep it together. Heck, we already see this phenomenon already. Divisiveness in politics is one example, there are many more.
Robert, you feel what is right and use superficial examples to support your feelings.
You wish it could be a kum by ya world, so project that onto America in a fantasy of your own desires, regardless of the real facts and circumstances.
Robert, the paradise you want would instead be the shanty-town you wish to avoid.
Post a Comment