Congress in Sync with us? - Page 4

Kerostasis · 06-30-2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I just don't understand what the fear is about. It is xenophobia. And all phobias are irrational.

Ooh, nice logic. "All irrational fears of immigrants are, by definition, irrational". What I don't get is, what does that tell us that we didn't already know? Does that mean there can't be any rational fears about illegal immigration?

xTYBALTx · 06-30-2007, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

So your taking the position that Manufacturing jobs such as Automotive would be doing well if they were held by Illegal Aliens who made less then the minimum wage. Interesting.

No. He's taking the almost undeniable position that when employers can get labor cheaper elsewhere, they sometimes will.

Lucky Shot · 06-30-2007, 12:50 PM

His initial position was that Illegal Aliens take positions that people in the US just won't do and Manufacturing is not a good example of that. A big three job pays fairly well. This arguments has nothing to do with why Illegal Aliens should be granted amnesty.

Lucky Shot

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-30-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Ooh, nice logic. "All irrational fears of immigrants are, by definition, irrational". What I don't get is, what does that tell us that we didn't already know? Does that mean there can't be any rational fears about illegal immigration?

There are very legitimate fears caused by maintaining the status quo.

Having a huge population of people that can't effectively partake in the society it lives is very scary. Having a law that obviously does not work is scary. Having a group of people that fear the law instead of respect it is scary.

I probably wasn't very clear in my last post but I do not want to keep the status quo. I want something done. I think if nothing is done things could get scary.

But attitudes of "they are invaders" and ignoring the fact that they did risk a lot coming here and they do contribute to our economy will do nothing but maintain the status quo. Flippant remarks such as "We will just change the constitution" do not lead to solutions. Simple minded ideas such as "put all the kids in orphanages" does not help the situation or lead to effective laws that serve the people (and those American kids are also "the people").
Using loaded terms such as "amnesty" when, in fact, there is none severely hurts any chance of a compromise.

And a compromise is needed in this situation.

My point is there seems to be an irrational fear of immigration and the people that are currently here illegally and pseudo illegally.

Arf · 06-30-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

His initial position was that Illegal Aliens take positions that people in the US just won't do and Manufacturing is not a good example of that. A big three job pays fairly well. This arguments has nothing to do with why Illegal Aliens should be granted amnesty.

Lucky Shot

You're just not getting it. Manufacturing includes anything that can have, "Made in China" written on it. Even if the Ford assembly plant is in America that doesn't mean the entire car is made in America. All the pieces they use to make the car are made in places like China, shipped to America, and then assembled into a car. Go down to your hardware store, Walmart, or even open your computer to see how many things "Made in China" is written on. Those are all manufacturing jobs that American labor is too expensive for.

**CingularDuality** · 06-30-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Using loaded terms such as "amnesty" when, in fact, there is none severely hurts any chance of a compromise.

The President has said this, and now you. Could you explain to me what an amnesty is, and why the President's plan is not an amnesty?

Every time the President says this, I find myself agreeing more and more with the left wing folks that insist that President Bush is a moron. It's not just poor speaking skills, he has said it repeatedly, and he (and you) are either deluded or are attempting to lie to others when you say such a ridiculous thing.

And what's wrong with my simple compromise of requiring the application for a guest worker visa to be done outside our country so that the workers can enter LEGALLY?

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-01-2007, 12:29 AM

If I speed and have to pay a fine did I get amnesty? Nope. They have to pay a fine. A pretty hefty fine if I understand correctly.

Quote:

From wiki

Improper uses of the term
Describing a change in a law which renders innocent actions which previously broke the law. For example, raising the speed limit from 55 to 70 is not "amnesty", even though those who have always gone 65 may now do so innocently. That is simply "changing the law", which is the job of lawmakers. Genuine amnesty is where a particular group of lawbreakers are pardoned for past violations which would otherwise be subject to prosecution.
Referring to imposed lesser sentences or punishments that are not "more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offence" as amnesty.
Often wrongly or purposely used by politicians and/or journalists to denote cases of pardon where offenses are not stricken from the record and individuals proclaimed innocent.[citation needed] Instead, those individuals receive some lesser reprimand or sentence in response to an admission of guilt. Otherwise defined as an act of leniency but not amnesty, per se.

So it is leniency, but not amnesty.

That is why I say their is no amnesty. Because their is none.

Lets say the that the law was changed such that all they had to do was drive across the boarder and as soon as they got over we handed them a visa and ten minutes later they could go right back to hometown USA. Is that what you are talking about?

Lucky Shot · 07-01-2007, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

You're just not getting it. Manufacturing includes anything that can have, "Made in China" written on it. Even if the Ford assembly plant is in America that doesn't mean the entire car is made in America. All the pieces they use to make the car are made in places like China, shipped to America, and then assembled into a car. Go down to your hardware store, Walmart, or even open your computer to see how many things "Made in China" is written on. Those are all manufacturing jobs that American labor is too expensive for.

Your argument is a red herring for Illegal Immigration. Global Sourcing is about seeking suppliers who can meet many different objects, cost being one of them. This has nothing to do with your initial argument that Illegal Immigrants should stay in the US because they will work jobs that American's won't.

Lucky Shot

Kerostasis · 07-01-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

If I speed and have to pay a fine did I get amnesty? Nope. They have to pay a fine. A pretty hefty fine if I understand correctly.

Unfortunately, you don't understand correctly. Not that its your fault, this bill was thousands of pages long and designed with the hopes that the average american would never have any clue what was actually in it...

But the way it worked was this: If that bill was signed, every illegal immigrant in the country would immediately see his chances of deportation drop to precisely zero, as long as he didn't commit any new major crimes that might involve deportation. (Murder perhaps? I'm not quite sure.) Then, if he wanted to, he could choose to pay the fines to begin the process of becoming a US citizen. But if he didn't want to become a citizen, he could just stay here forever as a newly dubbed "legal immigrant" without paying a dime.

**CingularDuality** · 07-01-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

If I speed and have to pay a fine did I get amnesty? Nope. They have to pay a fine. A pretty hefty fine if I understand correctly.

So it is leniency, but not amnesty.

That is why I say their is no amnesty. Because their is none.

Please read the paragraphs that you quoted again. "Changing the law" to allow people to come here is one thing. Pardoning the millions of people that have already committed federal crimes to be here is quite another. It's an amnesty by definition. How can you argue this?

Quote:

Lets say the that the law was changed such that all they had to do was drive across the boarder and as soon as they got over we handed them a visa and ten minutes later they could go right back to hometown USA. Is that what you are talking about?

Yes! It would prevent this program from rewarding the commission of federal crimes, while allowing the USA to have a bit more control over the admission process. Is it too much to ask? Is that too much of an inconvenience for someone that wants to immigrate to our country and has already criminally crossed our border?

Lebanon9999 · 07-01-2007, 03:45 AM

I don't know about u guys but the thought of people being able to enter the United States virtually undetected is not good. It is not right to allow people that have broken the law be given a free ride to citizenship while the people who are trying to do it legally just get delayed longer. The time it takes for someone to get into the United States legally can take up to five years. I don't believe congress is in tune with the people and if you guys haven't noticed their approval rating has plummeted lower than president Bush (the democrats just took control of congress not too long ago) when this happens in a very short period of time people have to step back and ask. Is my government doing the right thing for my country? and in this case the answer is no.

Arf · 07-01-2007, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Your argument is a red herring for Illegal Immigration. Global Sourcing is about seeking suppliers who can meet many different objects, cost being one of them. This has nothing to do with your initial argument that Illegal Immigrants should stay in the US because they will work jobs that American's won't.

Lucky Shot

My argument all along has been that illegal immigrants provide cheap labor for business that require it and illegal immigrants do no significant damage to the economy. To which your counter argument was that they do inflict significant cost and zero employment is good for the economy (thus more people in the economy is bad).

Now you pull us off on some ridiculous tangent under the argument that zero percent unemployment is good for the economy. It was you who implied that the big auto makers are the only parts of the manufacturing industry. I make a counter-post explaining why it is not and now you're calling it a red herring.

If we want to talk red herrings let's talk about your claim that immigrants deal significant damage to the economy. When you asked I posted support to my claims that some unemployment is good for the economy and illegals do negligible damage. You on the other hand have refused to stand to the same standard you hold others. When you make the claim that illegals do significant damage to the economy that's an argument that should come with some evidence. Somewhere out there you should be able to find some damage to the economy and support your claim unless you truly believe this is magic economic damage that nobody can see. You should also be able to find a respected economist who agrees that Zero Percent Unemployment is a plus for the economy. So far you've decided to ignore the lack of substance in your own argument, do you have a specific reason why your arguments are exempt from scrutiny?

Are we to believe that Lucky Shot's word alone is supreme and that all he says trumps the accepted experts of their fields, all he speaks is truth and so unlike regular men he is exempt from the necessity of proof?

Lucky Shot · 07-01-2007, 05:24 AM

I never said immigrants do a great deal of damage to the country, I said Illegal Immigrants do a great deal of damage to the country.

Illegal Immigration cost California roughly $9 Billion dollars in government funds.

Quote:

Martin's study looks specifically at the costs of educating illegal immigrants' children, providing medical care to illegal immigrants and jailing those convicted of committing crimes. The report estimates the total cost at $10.5 billion each year, but that is offset by about $1.7 billion in taxes that illegal immigrants pay.

Legal Immigrants are subject to a health inspection. Illegal Immigrants aren't and carry over whatever illness they may have. The impact in California according to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Quote:

High-technology EDs have degenerated into free medical offices. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals closed because half their services became unpaid. Another 24 California hospitals verge on closure. Even ambulances from Mexico come to American EDs with indigents because the drivers know that EMTALA requires accepting patients who come within 250 yards of a hospital. That geographic limit has figured in many lawsuits.

Crime statistics are rather startling according to Heather Mac Donald .

Quote:

• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.

Again, I don't see the benefit of having an underclass who uses more resources then they give back. I would prefer to bring in people who go about immigrating through the process that's set up. But, back to your comment.

Manufacturing cars came into the conversation with your post here. Regardless, Global Commerce and Trade is legal. Purchasing car parts from other parts of the world through global sourcing is legal. Businesses that remain in this country though are obligated to pay their US employees under US labor laws. Hiring Illegal Immigrants to work for you is Illegal. One doesn't have to be thick headed to understand that one is legal and one is not.

0% unemployment is a pipe dream, and I did not argue that 0% unemployment was my goal. However, paying people unemployment while allowing illegal aliens to occupy jobs is not helping the economy. Your paying out with one hand to the unemployed and your not bringing in tax money on the other. Opening up those jobs for the unemployed can only benefit those who are legally here. Secondly, it would force those businesses to pay a fair and marketable wage within the confines of US Labor laws (Minimum wage or above). If the business can't support itself through mechanization of it's labor or from paying workers a fair wage, then perhaps their business was just not meant to survive. If your big into economics, you understand that fewer workers means more competition between employers for workers. This in turn raises the amount that businesses offer for workers. Simple economics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

If we want to talk red herrings let's talk about your claim that immigrants deal significant damage to the economy.

That is not a red herring as it's a core piece of the Cost/Benefit analysis one must do in order to analyze the issue. I linked to what it meant thinking you would read it, sorry you misunderstood it.

Lucky Shot

Arf · 07-01-2007, 10:52 AM

I was talking about significant damage. You can throw out numbers like 9 billion but let's be intellectually honest. In a state with a gross revenue of 1.55 trillion dollars 9 billion dollars is a cost worth paying if industries such as agriculture which produces 31.8 billion dollars in revenue depend on it. Your argument is a straw man, you pull the numbers out of context to make them seem like they have weight. Once put in context we can see that a reasonable person would consider returns of at least 3 times the original investment as a gain, not a loss and certainly not significant damage to the economy.

Let's also put Jack Martin's study into context. The average pupil costs over 7,577 dollars in taxes to educate. If you were to make 30,000 dollars a year you would have to pay nearly 1/4 of your earnings per child you had enrolled in school in taxes, any legal minimum wage worker would also fall under the category of "underclass who uses more resources then they give back." His final tally of the cost also includes 597,000 American born citizens which is a little over half the 1,022,000 students he used to come up with his 7 billion dollar estimate.

When we move down to your next article we find that there's no context at all.

Quote:

Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis.

Is all they say. The reason for that is a controversial law that doesn't allow police to investigate immigration status (it protects illegals from deportation if they become witness to crimes and unfortunately also criminals from deportation). If the police don't keep track of that then where do these numbers come from? We simply don't know but the implications are clear; immigrants account for 95% of murder arrest warrants so as we increase the number of illegals the murder rate should go up but in California the number of illegals has been increasing while the murder rate has been decreasing. Our practical experience does not match the implications of the theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Legal Immigrants are subject to a health inspection. Illegal Immigrants aren't and carry over whatever illness they may have. The impact in California according to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

That has to be a joke. Yes, it's a joke.

Quote:

I did not argue that 0% unemployment was my goal.

Quote:

But moving towards a Zero percent puts a greater value on the need for workers, meaning that they have to increase their pay in order to attract workers. This means better wages for those at the bottom.

Nobody said anything about your goal being 0% unemployment. You've simply said that 0% unemployment would be beneficial to the economy. I have argued that it would burden employers too greatly and that your opinion is often disputed by the experts of the field which is why I asked that you find a respected expert that agrees with you, if it's basic economics I wouldn't be asking that much.

**Iamthefallen** · 07-01-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arf

That has to be a joke. Yes, it's a joke.

Negative. Before I could move over to the US I underwent a physical exam and blood tests to ensure that
a, I wouldn't bring over tuberculosis, AIDS, or any number of other nasty things.
b, I wasn't coming over just to mooch on the US health care system.
c, They could make some more money off of me. You pay quite a hefty amount at every turn going through the legal immigration process.

Still have the x-rays and the paperwork in a box, just in case any issues should come up.

06-30-2007, 12:50 PM	#48 (permalink)
Lucky Shot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,636	Re: Congress in Sync with us? His initial position was that Illegal Aliens take positions that people in the US just won't do and Manufacturing is not a good example of that. A big three job pays fairly well. This arguments has nothing to do with why Illegal Aliens should be granted amnesty. Lucky Shot

07-01-2007, 03:45 AM	#56 (permalink)
Lebanon9999 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5	Re: Congress in Sync with us? I don't know about u guys but the thought of people being able to enter the United States virtually undetected is not good. It is not right to allow people that have broken the law be given a free ride to citizenship while the people who are trying to do it legally just get delayed longer. The time it takes for someone to get into the United States legally can take up to five years. I don't believe congress is in tune with the people and if you guys haven't noticed their approval rating has plummeted lower than president Bush (the democrats just took control of congress not too long ago) when this happens in a very short period of time people have to step back and ask. Is my government doing the right thing for my country? and in this case the answer is no.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links