"myths And Half-truths About Illegal Immigration"

[Cephus]

Quote by: rmnunez Forcing united statian employers to pay workers higher wages so they had no advantage in hiring undocumenteds could resolve the ilegal immigration problem but it would cause another problem -inflation.

Except that it wouldn't do a thing to stop employers from illegally hiring illegal aliens. They're already paying less than minimum wage under the table, what makes you think that raising the minimum wage is going to make them suddenly start paying more?

The only thing that's going to make a difference is going after the employers, imposing the $10k fine per offense that's already on the books, and taking away business licenses for repeat and gross offenders. Then the illegals will have no reason whatsoever to come north, there will be no jobs for them to take.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Cephus It doesn't matter what he believes or what he does, if he's right, then he's right. You might hate Hitler, but if he said 1+1=2, then he'd be right and it would really be irrelevant what your feelings about him personally were on the matter. Let's try to keep the logical fallacies to a minimum, shall we?

So now you argue that one should have support Hitler on those occasions when he did his math correctly? We should perhaps overlook his other, shall we say, proclivities? That is nicely disconnected from practical reality.

We all chose with whom we associate. There is no "logical fallacy" involved in pointing out when someone is quoting from a web-site hosted by a white supremacist with a history of violence. Simply the truth.

[rmnunez]

Cephus, it is suggested the problem of immigration has to do with big bad and greedy united statian corporations hiring the undocumenteds because they can pay them lower wages. If this were more forbidden and much more severely punished, the expectation is that those terrible corporations would have to hire citizens instead. Citizens know they are entitled to the minimum wage, which is more than what those corporations pay undocumenteds they would be replacing. If united statians would take the menial jobs undocumenteds do, they certainly wouldn't at the wages undocumenteds accept. Once you appreciate how having trade unions, worker benefits, job-safety compliance and higher wages would affect the situation, you can take the next step and figure how this will be paid for. If you are a critical lefty you probably expect it to come out of the pockets of those big, bad and greedy corporations, but if you've got a bit more common sense you'll realize added costs will be borne by the consumers instead -hence inflation.

[Cephus]

Quote by: RickSp So now you argue that one should have support Hitler on those occasions when he did his math correctly? We should perhaps overlook his other, shall we say, proclivities? That is nicely disconnected from practical reality.

It has nothing to do with support, it has to do with acknowledging reality. To say that someone you dislike is wrong in all cases, just because you dislike them is a logical fallacy.

We all chose with whom we associate. There is no "logical fallacy" involved in pointing out when someone is quoting from a web-site hosted by a white supremacist with a history of violence. Simply the truth.

That part is true. To state that because of the above, that individual must be wrong is, indeed, fallacious.

[Cephus]

Quote by: rmnunez Cephus, it is suggested the problem of immigration has to do with big bad and greedy united statian corporations hiring the undocumenteds because they can pay them lower wages.

And those companies should be punished severely, not because they are paying low wages, but because they are employing people that it is illegal for them to employ.

If this were more forbidden and much more severely punished, the expectation is that those terrible corporations would have to hire citizens instead.

Which is ridiculous on the face of it. It is highly unlikely that they are going to employ a legal citizen simply because they are 'following the law' when they are already breaking the law by hiring an illegal. Increasing the wages without enforcing the laws is just going to make it more likely that they will ignore the law and continue to hire illegals, not the other way around.

If you are a critical lefty you probably expect it to come out of the pockets of those big, bad and greedy corporations, but if you've got a bit more common sense you'll realize added costs will be borne by the consumers instead -hence inflation.

Until the consumers stop buying the products and the companies need to re-evaluate their structure to compensate for the additional costs. Raising wages, in and of itself, will increase inflation, you're right, but since there is so much waste in most modern corporations, it might just be the impetus to clean up their act and take some fiscal responsibility, especially if we start imposing the $10K/offense fine on every single company caught employing illegals without exception.

Paying massive fines and facing the possible revokation of your business license certainly is going to be more of a concern than saving a couple bucks by hiring illegals to begin with.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp So now you argue that one should have support Hitler on those occasions when he did his math correctly? We should perhaps overlook his other, shall we say, proclivities?

Geez, it just keeps dribbling down your chin, doesn't it? How about showing us where anyone said anything about either supporting Hitler or overlooking his actions?

[quote=RickSp;330662]That is nicely disconnected from practical reality. [/QUOTE

What seems to be disconnected from reality is your reading comprehension. Unusual for you to appear so dense. I don't think I've ever seen you make such asinine posts before.

Quote by: RickSp We all chose with whom we associate.

More crap, trying to imply that what was posted had anything to do with choosing to associate with someone.

Quote by: RickSp There is no "logical fallacy" involved in pointing out when someone is quoting from a web-site hosted by a white supremacist with a history of violence. Simply the truth.

But you didn't just point that out, did you?? You made claims of support, association, who I regard as "good spokesmen", etc. Nothing but a bunch of lies, which, as I said earlier, makes you a liar. It's not name-calling, it's a title you have earned and deserve.

[Blef]

Quote by: rmnunez Forcing united statian employers to pay workers higher wages...

Why should the mafia or the government or any other powerful gang have the right to force any employer to do anything? That's what's so despicable about governments and other knaves and villains... force.

Quote by: rmnunez ... so they had no advantage in hiring undocumenteds could resolve the ilegal immigration problem but it would cause another problem -inflation.

Not hardly. Inflation occurs because of growth in the money supply, not because of increase in wages. Increased wages affects the cost of business which may result in changes in the price of goods or services. But that is just the normal workings of the market. That is not a measure of inflation unless the price increases come about as the result of devaluing the currency by creating more of it.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Once you appreciate how having trade unions, worker benefits, job-safety compliance and higher wages would affect the situation, you can take the next step and figure how this will be paid for. If you are a critical lefty you probably expect it to come out of the pockets of those big, bad and greedy corporations, but if you've got a bit more common sense you'll realize added costs will be borne by the consumers instead -hence inflation.

Oh damn, it's those "critical lefties" again. Won't they ever leave us alone??

You fail to note that the "consumers", in the form of taxpayers, are already paying those "added" costs by effectively subsidizing the corporations that hire these illegals. When they don't pay liveable wages, the workers can't afford medical or car insurance, and don't pay property or much in the form of income taxes. The taxpayers pay when illegals use emergency rooms for their primary medical care facility, and also pick up the tab for educating their kids. "those big, bad and greedy corporations" profit by low salaries, the taxpayer subsidize them.

[Blef]

Quote by: Zeebadee You fail to note that the "consumers", in the form of taxpayers, are already paying those "added" costs by effectively subsidizing the corporations that hire these illegals. When they don't pay liveable wages, the workers can't afford medical or car insurance, and don't pay property or much in the form of income taxes. The taxpayers pay when illegals use emergency rooms for their primary medical care facility, and also pick up the tab for educating their kids. "those big, bad and greedy corporations" profit by low salaries, the taxpayer subsidize them.

This is another example of why both taxation is wrong, taxpayer-funded welfare is wrong, and why government regulation of labor markets is wrong.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Blef This is another example of why both taxation is wrong, taxpayer-funded welfare is wrong, and why government regulation of labor markets is wrong.

The Constitution makes it clear that the government's responsibility is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". How do you expect to accomplish these tasks without having some form of income (taxes) for the government to pay for them?

[Blef]

Quote by: Zeebadee The Constitution makes it clear that the government's responsibility is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". How do you expect to accomplish these tasks without having some form of income (taxes) for the government to pay for them?

Local thugs might extort protection money from timid merchants, too. Does this make it right or acceptable somehow? It's coercion whether the government does it or Guido and his pals.

But to answer your question, I don't expect (or want) the government to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". I don't want the government to exist at all.

I certainly never consented to being governed, and I'm not asking for anyone to supply me any of those expensive little perks my stolen tax dollars are supposed to buy for me.

I am an enemy of the state.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Blef Why should the mafia or the government or any other powerful gang have the right to force any employer to do anything? That's what's so despicable about governments and other knaves and villains... force.

Because employers are only watching out for themselves, governments are supposed to be watching out for everyone. If left to their own devices, employers would be dumping toxic chemicals on streetcorners, forcing employees to work for pennies an hour, indebting them to the company forever and using forced child labor. That's what they did before the government stepped in.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Blef But to answer your question, I don't expect (or want) the government to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". I don't want the government to exist at all.

Then by all means, renounce your American citizenship and go find somewhere else to live. *THIS* country has a constitution. Deal with it.

I am an enemy of the state.

Not quite the word I would have used.

[dilligras]

Howdy folks!

Dilligras here, with the play by play of THE ball game of the season, starring two of the most dynamic teams in baseball, Zeebadee and RickSp, brought to you today by the folks at Blitz Beer........"Drink all ya want, 'cause it'll go right thru ya like the Nazis went thru Poland!!"

Zeebadee takes to the field........waitaminute, folks.....I'll be darned.....he's setting up his center fielder almost to left field!!.......this is unprecedented, sports fans.......he must be reacting to the unusually strong move to left reported among Rick's lineup by his scouts......

Man! It's a veritable plethora of logical fauz pas out there, folks, the foul balls are fllyin' today!

Don't touch that dial, now, 'cause weeeee'll be right back after this word from Blitz, "The beer you might as well pour into the urinal..."


<<bored listener changes station>>



As you were.

[xyzer]

I haven't seen it mentioned that market forces(supply and demand) drive wages. If illegals are willing to work for less, food(and other seekers of unskilled workers) producers will hire them at the lowest salary possible. ergo wage prices are driven down!

Contrariwise as TweedleDee said to TweedleDum...Why do the Pelosi Democrats want to raise the minimum wage? Could it be to attract more lower wage seeking illegals? Wow isn't that a logical(underhanded way) to handle the illegal immigration problem? I think its smacks of political hypocrisy?

To turn back to the subject of the thread...myths? I agree that the good old human rationalization process is glaringly evident in this dilema..In all the improbable rationalizations for illegal immigration the main problem is subordinated to illogical nonsense..That problem is it's illegal! It thwarts adherence to and pride in our countries attempt to operate under a rule of law!

We don't excuse bank robbers because they say they didn't have a job, or couldn't find other work, do we? We don't rationalize someones motives which enables him to illegally obtain certain government largess he does not qualify for, do we? We don't excuse speed zone violators because they got up late do we?
The logic applied by some amazes me?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Zeebadee The Constitution makes it clear that the government's responsibility is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". How do you expect to accomplish these tasks without having some form of income (taxes) for the government to pay for them?

Well, I won't quote go to the point that Blef did, let's take this from a more practical point of view.

Those things are listed in the Preamble, or the introduction to the Constitution. The introduction states what the purpose of the Constitution is, it doesn't set any specific goals or tasks for the government. The rest of the Constitution lays out how the government is to work to accomplish those purposes and what specific goals will be worked towards in order to accomplish those purposes.

There is so much wrong with what we have today compared to what was listed as the powers and limitations of our federal government. I would contend that the allowed forms of taxation would be enough to provide a Constitutional government, without any form of income tax or other tax on individuals. The original Constitution allowed for excises and taxes on imports. If more was needed, it was to be collected from the states. The states were effectively allowed to tax however they saw appropriate, consistent with their own Constitutions, to provide for the federal government.

The IRS collects some $1.2-1.5 trillion. Internal Revenue Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we were to provide a national defense, rather than international offense, we could reduce our budget by approximately $8billion/month, or just under $100billion/year for expenditures in Afghanistan and Iraq alone. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 Extending those reductions to anything that doesn't provide protections to Americans, in America, (as provided for in the Constitution) would likely reduce the entire military budget from nearly $500 billion, to approximately $100billion. A total reduction of $400billion or nearly one third of total IRS collected revenues.

It has been estimated that the cost of the War on Drugs (a blatantly unconstitutional prohibition) runs somewhere from $20-100billion. Picking a conservative middle number of $50billion gives us total savings, now, of about $450billion per year.

Deparments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, EPA, International Assistance programs, NASA, National Science Foundation accounts for around $1,050billion http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist04z1.xls. None of those are authorized by the Constitution. Takes us to a total of around $1.5trillion.

Add in the costs of running the IRS itself, and by returning to the government authorized by our Constitution, we could easily eliminate the IRS and, probably, return to the system of revenue generation intended by our founding fathers. And, might even show a surplus that could allow us to start to cut the national debt of which we're paying nearly a half trillion dollars in interest payments.

And, HEY!!! (to return to the topic) if we eliminate all of those unconstitutional expenditures and efforts, we might have the opportunity to protect our borders from ne'er do wells from crossing.

Keith

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Well, I won't quote go to the point that Blef did, let's take this from a more practical point of view. Those things are listed in the Preamble, or the introduction to the Constitution. The introduction states what the purpose of the Constitution is, it doesn't set any specific goals or tasks for the government. The rest of the Constitution lays out how the government is to work to accomplish those purposes and what specific goals will be worked towards in order to accomplish those purposes. There is so much wrong with what we have today compared to what was listed as the powers and limitations of our federal government. I would contend that the allowed forms of taxation would be enough to provide a Constitutional government, without any form of income tax or other tax on individuals. The original Constitution allowed for excises and taxes on imports. If more was needed, it was to be collected from the states. The states were effectively allowed to tax however they saw appropriate, consistent with their own Constitutions, to provide for the federal government. The IRS collects some $1.2-1.5 trillion. Internal Revenue Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If we were to provide a national defense, rather than international offense, we could reduce our budget by approximately $8billion/month, or just under $100billion/year for expenditures in Afghanistan and Iraq alone. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 Extending those reductions to anything that doesn't provide protections to Americans, in America, (as provided for in the Constitution) would likely reduce the entire military budget from nearly $500 billion, to approximately $100billion. A total reduction of $400billion or nearly one third of total IRS collected revenues. It has been estimated that the cost of the War on Drugs (a blatantly unconstitutional prohibition) runs somewhere from $20-100billion. Picking a conservative middle number of $50billion gives us total savings, now, of about $450billion per year. Deparments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, EPA, International Assistance programs, NASA, National Science Foundation accounts for around $1,050billion http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist04z1.xls. None of those are authorized by the Constitution. Takes us to a total of around $1.5trillion. Add in the costs of running the IRS itself, and by returning to the government authorized by our Constitution, we could easily eliminate the IRS and, probably, return to the system of revenue generation intended by our founding fathers. And, might even show a surplus that could allow us to start to cut the national debt of which we're paying nearly a half trillion dollars in interest payments. And, HEY!!! (to return to the topic) if we eliminate all of those unconstitutional expenditures and efforts, we might have the opportunity to protect our borders from ne'er do wells from crossing. Keith

I wholeheartedly agree, the government is taking far more in power and taxes than it was ever intended to. I was responding to the statement that, "taxation is wrong". Clearly, some amount of taxation is necessary to provide those functions and services mandated by the Constitution, of which the preamble is a part.

[Blef]

Quote by: Cephus Because employers are only watching out for themselves, governments are supposed to be watching out for everyone. If left to their own devices, employers would be dumping toxic chemicals on streetcorners, forcing employees to work for pennies an hour, indebting them to the company forever and using forced child labor. That's what they did before the government stepped in.

Everyone should be looking out for themselves. People aren't helpless unless they are trained to be. Or do you think we have two or more different species of humans on the planet with differing capabilities and proclivities; maybe employers (predators) and workers (prey) and government servants (wildlife managers and park rangers)?

Employers do not force employees to work for pennies an hour. They offer them a job at a wage that potential employees may accept or decline, as they wish.

And your solution to the imagined predations of employers against workers is as imaginative as Bush's plan for advancing democracy in Iraq; beat 'em into submission.

If employers are so evil, why not just outlaw them, throw 'em in prison, or line 'em up against the wall and shoot them? Then the workers will all be free.

[Blef]

Quote by: Cephus Then by all means, renounce your American citizenship and go find somewhere else to live. *THIS* country has a constitution. Deal with it.

I have as much right to live here as you do, and I'm not interested in leaving. What gives you or anyone else the right to decide where I may or may not live, or force me to be bound by a constitution penned by men who died two hundred years ago? How can that document have any relevance now that all of the people who agreed to it (a negligible subset of the population at the time) are dead?

What makes you think the constitution applies to you? You think it is because you were born in the United States of America? What does the accident of your birth have to do with it?

[Blef]

Quote by: xyzer I haven't seen it mentioned that market forces(supply and demand) drive wages. If illegals are willing to work for less, food(and other seekers of unskilled workers) producers will hire them at the lowest salary possible. ergo wage prices are driven down!

Labor is a market, as you just demonstrated. Remove all price and market regulation and the entire economic system will balance itself.