6 of 10
6
Immigration is bad because…
Posted: 07 August 2014 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Lausten - 07 August 2014 10:31 AM

You keep saying we can solve the problem by sealing the border, but if rich people want to hire cheap labor, they’ll figure out a way to do it.

Where do I say that the solution is sealing the border?
The solution is going after the employers that hire illegal aliens. I’ve already affirmed that in a few posts.
The tax discussion here is a distraction. At best it’s a baseline figure that goes across the board regarding low-income Americans who are struggling and illegal aliens who are no doubt lowering the baseline wages for those American Citizens.

Illegal Aliens are lowering the baseline wages for all Americans.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2014 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Occam. - 07 August 2014 10:30 AM

Quoting Vyzama:

Of course many illegal aliens don’t pay any taxes at all because they work under the table.

  Come on, Vy, that’s because the employers are cheating and should be fined. 


Occam

Yes I agree. That should be the first step-going after employers who hire illegal aliens.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2014 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21
VYAZMA - 07 August 2014 10:43 AM

Where do I say that the solution is sealing the border?
.

What did you mean by this:

This problem was started by Congress’ Asylum Law that GWB signed in 2008.
It was compounded by Obama and his Dream Act laws.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2014 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Lausten - 07 August 2014 11:23 AM
VYAZMA - 07 August 2014 10:43 AM

Where do I say that the solution is sealing the border?
.

What did you mean by this:

This problem was started by Congress’ Asylum Law that GWB signed in 2008.
It was compounded by Obama and his Dream Act laws.

It sent a message to foreign nationals that it was ok to illegally enter the United States under the pretext of age or
asylum status or both.
If you wrongly equate that with sealing the borders that’s fine also, because sealing the border is definitely one part of the machine in combating
illegal immigration. That’s obvious. We wouldn’t have Customs Agents or Border Patrol otherwise.

I’m not going to keep round and round with your circular arguments Lausten.
We’ll see where the political will of the American People takes us from here.
The laws are already on the books…they just need to be enforced.
I’ll will be following these issues closely as always.
You’ve made your points….you’re for illegal aliens because of compassionate reasons and because you feel Nations and Citizenship means nothing.

My points are: the laws are already on the books! We shall see where the political will goes from here as far as enforcement goes.

[ Edited: 07 August 2014 11:49 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2014 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21

This isn’t to VYAZMA because he doesn’t read my links anyway. I’ve already said this, but I’ll summarize again.

People crossing the border illegally are not “illegals”. I’m sure there’s a name for that logical fallacy. They committed a misdemeanor. There is a complex system of forms and laws for what they can do once they are here, including getting a temporary “SSN”. Part of the reason people are out of compliance is that it is so complex. So when you say “those are the laws”, you also have to include “this is how we are enforcing them”. I’m glad we aren’t quadrupling the cost of our justice system just so we can adjudicate more of these cases. I’m perfectly happy having a two-year waiting list for some kid that doesn’t know where her mother is. I would rather the money went to a shelter for them instead a salary for a government lawyer.

I’m pretty sure most of Congress wants to reform the system, but there is a vocal minority with the power to change elections based on how you vote on one issue. I’m pretty sure most Americans would support the reform, again, vocal minority creating misinformation. Immigration laws change all the time and we are in a more restrictive period than normal, so even saying that the current situation is that more people are streaming in now is out of touch with historic reality.

The argument that “these are the laws, therefore I’m on the side of what is right” is not a valid argument. If that were true, then slavery was right, burning at the stake was right, getting busted for a roach in your pocket was right. You can say that those people can be forgiven for having a different understanding based on their knowledge, but you can say it was right in the universal sense of the word “right”. If you want to argue that pointing guns at a bus load of children and yelling that they should go home is right, that’s your right, and I’ll defend your right to do it, but you’re wrong.

(I’m just saying that as an example. I don’t recall anyone here saying they support that particular action).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2014 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  844
Joined  2014-06-20
Lausten - 07 August 2014 02:45 PM

This isn’t to VYAZMA because he doesn’t read my links anyway. I’ve already said this, but I’ll summarize again.

People crossing the border illegally are not “illegals”. I’m sure there’s a name for that logical fallacy. They committed a misdemeanor. There is a complex system of forms and laws for what they can do once they are here, including getting a temporary “SSN”. Part of the reason people are out of compliance is that it is so complex. So when you say “those are the laws”, you also have to include “this is how we are enforcing them”. I’m glad we aren’t quadrupling the cost of our justice system just so we can adjudicate more of these cases. I’m perfectly happy having a two-year waiting list for some kid that doesn’t know where her mother is. I would rather the money went to a shelter for them instead a salary for a government lawyer.

I’m pretty sure most of Congress wants to reform the system, but there is a vocal minority with the power to change elections based on how you vote on one issue. I’m pretty sure most Americans would support the reform, again, vocal minority creating misinformation. Immigration laws change all the time and we are in a more restrictive period than normal, so even saying that the current situation is that more people are streaming in now is out of touch with historic reality.

The argument that “these are the laws, therefore I’m on the side of what is right” is not a valid argument. If that were true, then slavery was right, burning at the stake was right, getting busted for a roach in your pocket was right. You can say that those people can be forgiven for having a different understanding based on their knowledge, but you can say it was right in the universal sense of the word “right”. If you want to argue that pointing guns at a bus load of children and yelling that they should go home is right, that’s your right, and I’ll defend your right to do it, but you’re wrong.

(I’m just saying that as an example. I don’t recall anyone here saying they support that particular action).

The use of illegals in referring to people in the country illegally is part of the standard vernacular—in other countries, as well.  Would you say that a person driving without a license is not driving illegally? It would not be wrong to say he is an illegal driver? Yet when we call people in the country illegals, some people go into a frenzy as if the use of a perfectly valid term were some sort of attack. It describes them perfectly. If you were in a country without permission, you’d be called an illegal, too. Would that wound you to the quick? I’ll bet you’ve been called worse things more than once.wink

 

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2014 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21
LoisL - 07 August 2014 08:15 PM

The use of illegals in referring to people in the country illegally is part of the standard vernacular—in other countries, as well.  Would you say that a person driving without a license is not driving illegally? It would not be wrong to say he is an illegal driver? Yet when we call people in the country illegals, some people go into a frenzy as if the use of a perfectly valid term were some sort of attack. It describes them perfectly. If you were in a country without permission, you’d be called an illegal, too. Would that wound you to the quick? I’ll bet you’ve been called worse things more than once.wink

 

Lois

Not a correct comparison. Would you call someone who got a speeding ticket an illegal driver? Just because someone crossed the border illegally, the law does not require that they be immediately deported. The term “illegal” is also used to describe someone who crossed the border legally, but then stayed here longer than they were allowed because they are working. They could have been hired legally and have a legal ITIN. But they are violating some immigration law. Do you think it is better to disrupt that functioning economic transaction just because our immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers? If you think I’m making this stuff up, you didn’t read my earlier links.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2014 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21

Oh, sorry. I take it all back. Now I see. They are highly trained warriors, who will hide out in homeschools, um, middle schools, then rise up.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2014 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  844
Joined  2014-06-20
Lausten - 12 July 2014 07:59 PM
macgyver - 12 July 2014 01:00 PM

I think Lois pretty much hit the nail on the head. Immigration can be a positive thing when the its done in an orderly fashion and the immigrant has something to contribute to their new country. On the other hand when immigration occurs at a pace that overwhelms the existing resources and social supports and when there is no filter on the type of individuals that are allowed to enter it can clearly be harmful.

Letting a reasonable number of highly trained scientists and engineers immigrate could be a big plus, but allowing hoards of illiterate, uneducated and unemployed people in who quickly tap social services would be an enormous drain especially if there are some criminals sprinkled in among them.

This is what legal immigration is all about. Its about a countries right to impose restrictions so that immigration will be beneficial and not harmful. Illegal immigration removes the safeguards that protect a country from harmful immigration.

The idea of resources being overwhelmed seems central to Lois’ argument. It is valid as an argument for having an immigration policy. It does NOT apply to the current situation of Central America children arriving at our southern border. I’m not sure when it has ever applied to any real situation in this country.
Bill Moyers on refugees

Please describe a situation where it does not apply. If our resources are overwhelmed with unaccompanied minors on the border, what are we to do? If these children wind up in the hundreds on your doorstep, do you invite them in, feed, shelter, educate and medicate them? Do you do the same with the next hundred? Do you do it on your own? Do you have unlimited resources?

It’s a cruel lie to assume the US can and should take in every unaccompanied minor who winds up on the border. If you think we can and should do it, please let us know when you have rescued and will absorb your first hundred children into your family and your home, whom you will support with your own resources. Photographs will help.

Lois

[ Edited: 26 August 2014 11:20 AM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2014 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21
LoisL - 26 August 2014 11:17 AM

Please describe a situation where it does not apply. If our resources are overwhelmed with unaccompanied minors on the border, what are we to do? If these children wind up in the hundreds on your doorstep, do you invite them in, feed, shelter, educate and medicate them? Do you do the same with the next hundred? Do you do it on your own? Do you have unlimited resources?

It’s a cruel lie to assume the US can and should take in every unaccompanied minor who winds up on the border. If you think we can and should do it, please let us know when you have rescued and will absorb your first hundred children into your family and your home, whom you will support with your own resources. Photographs will help.

Lois

You’ve never even attempted to make a case for how these children our overwhelming our resources. You would need to enumerate the resources we have, estimate the resources required and show a sizable difference. That shouldn’t be that hard. I don’t have to take care of each individual child because I live in a society that cooperates and works together to make the world better. My parents didn’t directly fund all of my education, I don’t pay a toll every time I drive to work, I’m pretty sure I use more than the average amount of bandwidth than people around me, but we all pay the same internet fees. I don’t have unlimited resources, I just live on top of one of the biggest aquifers in the world within the borders of the richest nation in history. And we don’t treat every unaccompanied minor the same. These children are coming from a dangerous area where they are imminently threatened and we helped cause the situation they are in. If you feel your sense of security is threatened by this situation, then you might want to consider seeking mental health counseling because that is completely irrational.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2014 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Lausten - 26 August 2014 07:00 PM

You’ve never even attempted to make a case for how these children our overwhelming our resources. You would need to enumerate the resources we have, estimate the resources required and show a sizable difference. That shouldn’t be that hard. I don’t have to take care of each individual child because I live in a society that cooperates and works together to make the world better. My parents didn’t directly fund all of my education, I don’t pay a toll every time I drive to work, I’m pretty sure I use more than the average amount of bandwidth than people around me, but we all pay the same internet fees. I don’t have unlimited resources, I just live on top of one of the biggest aquifers in the world within the borders of the richest nation in history. And we don’t treat every unaccompanied minor the same. These children are coming from a dangerous area where they are imminently threatened and we helped cause the situation they are in. If you feel your sense of security is threatened by this situation, then you might want to consider seeking mental health counseling because that is completely irrational.

I was considering a reply to Lois but you did it better than I would have. +1.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2014 11:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  844
Joined  2014-06-20
Lausten - 07 August 2014 08:33 PM
LoisL - 07 August 2014 08:15 PM

The use of illegals in referring to people in the country illegally is part of the standard vernacular—in other countries, as well.  Would you say that a person driving without a license is not driving illegally? It would not be wrong to say he is an illegal driver? Yet when we call people in the country illegals, some people go into a frenzy as if the use of a perfectly valid term were some sort of attack. It describes them perfectly. If you were in a country without permission, you’d be called an illegal, too. Would that wound you to the quick? I’ll bet you’ve been called worse things more than once.wink

 

Lois

Lausten: Not a correct comparison. Would you call someone who got a speeding ticket an illegal driver?


No, because he wouldn’t be one. He’d be a legal driver who got a speeding ticket.

Lausten: Just because someone crossed the border illegally, the law does not require that they be immediately deported.

Who said it did? But when they cross the border illegally they must know they may face deportation if they’re caught.  Everyone who crosses the border illegally knows that. Why should they not be deported?


Lausten: The term “illegal” is also used to describe someone who crossed the border legally, but then stayed here longer than they were allowed because they are working.

Yes, and if the person was in the country on a visitor’s visa he shouldn’t have been working after it expires. It’s stated on the visa, which he would have signed, saying he understood the law that he is not to work here without a work permit or after it expires.


Lausten: They could have been hired legally and have a legal ITIN.


He could not have been hired legally if he’s here on a visitor’s visa without a work permit. If he had a work permit that expired, he is working here illegally and is in the country illegally.

Lausten: But they are violating some immigration law.


yes, they are. Do you think it’s ok to violate an immigration law?

Lausten: Do you think it is better to disrupt that functioning economic transaction just because our immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers?

Do you think it’s better to disrupt immigration laws the person knows he’s breaking?  I think it’s better if people visiiting this country follow the rules they agreed to when they got the visa, if they have one. If they don’t have one they’re also breaking the law.  Do you think you would be allowed to stay in some other country if you break their immigration laws? Do you think they would say it’s ok if you say, “But you are disrupting a functioning economic transaction just because your immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers.”? If you cry real tears would they say, “OK, then, you can stay”? What sort of alternative universe are you are living in?

 

If you think I’m making this stuff up, you didn’t read my earlier links.

Why should I think you’re making anything up? You are describing someone who is breaking the law. If he’s here and working while on a visitor’s permit and has no work permit he’s breaking the law he was informed of when he obtained the visa. If he came ito the country without a visa, he also knew he was breaking the law. If he overstayed his visa he is breaking the law—which is written on the visa, which he signed agreeing to abide by the law. What part of the law do you not understand? Just because you don’t like a law doesn’t mean you get to break it with no consequences.

[ Edited: 26 August 2014 11:40 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2014 04:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21

While I’m formulating a response to some of your comments above, please read.

Lausten: Just because someone crossed the border illegally, the law does not require that they be immediately deported.

Who said it did? But when they cross the border illegally they must know they may face deportation if they’re caught.  Everyone who crosses the border illegally knows that. Why should they not be deported?

It’s hard to even tell what you think. Slow down. You ask me who said they face deportation, then you say they face deportation. So the answer to your first question is YOU. And you are wrong. “They” in this case is children who are here because they are in imminent danger, and that’s why they should NOT be deported. Why do you disagree with that?

edit: “NOT” be deported, NOT

[ Edited: 27 August 2014 10:34 AM by Lausten ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2014 06:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21
LoisL - 26 August 2014 11:34 PM

Lausten: Not a correct comparison. Would you call someone who got a speeding ticket an illegal driver?

No, because he wouldn’t be one. He’d be a legal driver who got a speeding ticket.

Exactly, and these children are legal immigrants who committed a misdemeanor when they crossed the border. It’s right at the top of this page, What is DACA?

LoisL - 26 August 2014 11:34 PM

Lausten: The term “illegal” is also used to describe someone who crossed the border legally, but then stayed here longer than they were allowed because they are working.

Yes, and if the person was in the country on a visitor’s visa he shouldn’t have been working after it expires. It’s stated on the visa, which he would have signed, saying he understood the law that he is not to work here without a work permit or after it expires.

If the employee still needs that person and everything else is still above board, then this is a problem with the visa law, not the worker or employer. This is why we need immigration reform, not more border patrol.

LoisL - 26 August 2014 11:34 PM

Lausten: But they are violating some immigration law.

yes, they are. Do you think it’s ok to violate an immigration law?

Yes. I also think it’s okay to roll through a stop sign in the middle of the night in my small town when no one is around. People violate laws all the time. Cops give people warnings instead of tickets all the time. Sometimes it’s civil disobedience. It’s part of how the system works.

LoisL - 26 August 2014 11:34 PM

Lausten: Do you think it is better to disrupt that functioning economic transaction just because our immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers?

Do you think it’s better to disrupt immigration laws the person knows he’s breaking?  I think it’s better if people visiiting this country follow the rules they agreed to when they got the visa, if they have one. If they don’t have one they’re also breaking the law.  Do you think you would be allowed to stay in some other country if you break their immigration laws? Do you think they would say it’s ok if you say, “But you are disrupting a functioning economic transaction just because your immigration laws are not meeting the needs of the employers.”? If you cry real tears would they say, “OK, then, you can stay”? What sort of alternative universe are you are living in?

I live in a country where the immigration laws are broken. They don’t match the reality of our economic needs. Yes, I put a functioning economy above broken, outdated laws upheld by bigoted Tea party libertarians in ten gallon hats with half pint brains.

LoisL - 26 August 2014 11:34 PM

Lausten: If you think I’m making this stuff up, you didn’t read my earlier links.

Why should I think you’re making anything up? You are describing someone who is breaking the law. If he’s here and working while on a visitor’s permit and has no work permit he’s breaking the law he was informed of when he obtained the visa. If he came ito the country without a visa, he also knew he was breaking the law. If he overstayed his visa he is breaking the law—which is written on the visa, which he signed agreeing to abide by the law. What part of the law do you not understand? Just because you don’t like a law doesn’t mean you get to break it with no consequences.

Following the law can have consequences too. It’s you who does not understand the law. You are using a childish interpretation, a black and white definition of illegal. According to your logic, Rosa Parks should have just gone to the back of the bus quietly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2014 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21

Here is the answer to your question about what could happen if I overstayed a visa in Europe. Notice that deportation is only one of many things that could happen. There is a webpage that looks very much like this one for US visas.

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 10
6