NBVegita Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigrant...nomy/index.html I love how CNN presents this story like we should feel bad for poor Pedro. Good riddance. Quote
SeVeR Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Why good riddance? Why not feel bad? Yes, he should leave because he can't find work, and this is unfortunate with the economic downturn. I certainly won't lose sleep over it because immigrant workers are supposed to fill the extra jobs during boom periods. It's still unfortunate. I just don't understand why you're saying good riddance. Quote
NBVegita Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Posted February 10, 2009 I say good riddance because the more illegal immigrants that leave the country, the more Americans will be forced to work those jobs. Yes Americans don't want these jobs over the past decade, but now they're getting a reality check. Their cushy 60-100k a year jobs have gone away. They need to pay bills, eat, support their kids ect. These people will start taking these jobs soon enough and at this point I'd rather see a tax paying American citizen working than an illegal immigrant. Quote
FMBI Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but, aside from the ethical and moral considerations (which would seem to be completely opposite to your stated point of view), is it really a good time to be laughing about sending immigrants back home? The reason they're here in the first place is because of our brilliant banana-republicization economic strategy for Latin America, and if the immigrants - the only ones making any real money, other than the big landowners - go home, then you're likely to see a massive amount of instability and gang violence. This is especially true in the case of Mexico (where most of these "immigrant going home" stories come from) - we're already looking at our first huge cross-border drug war, and you want to make it worse? Quote
NBVegita Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Posted February 10, 2009 So wait let me get this straight...It would be too much trouble to do anything about the illegal immigrants so let's do nothing? Oh that sounds like a winner to me. Quote
SeVeR Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) I say good riddance because the more illegal immigrants that leave the country' date=' the more Americans will be forced to work those jobs. Yes Americans don't want these jobs over the past decade, but now they're getting a reality check. Their cushy 60-100k a year jobs have gone away. They need to pay bills, eat, support their kids ect. These people will start taking these jobs soon enough and at this point I'd rather see a tax paying American citizen working than an illegal immigrant.[/quote'] The problem is not the workers. The immigrants enter the country and fill the demand for low-wage jobs. As we are seeing now, they leave when there isn't enough demand. The problem is the employers. They will continue to employ immigrant workers, just they won't have as many of them in the economic downturn as they used to. So all these Americans who are now unemployed still won't be able to fill these low-wage jobs because the employers will still be employing as many immigrants for these jobs as they can. All we get is more unemployed Americans on welfare. Edited February 10, 2009 by SeVeR Quote
NBVegita Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Posted February 10, 2009 And having more immigrants in America will help that? I fail to see how seeing illegal immigrants leaving America is something that any American should be sad about. Quote
SeVeR Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) I wasn't saying more immigrants will help or that them leaving should be sad... They come and go as the demand dictates. Edited February 10, 2009 by SeVeR Quote
NBVegita Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Posted February 10, 2009 Why good riddance? Why not feel bad? I misinterpreted that towards immigrants as a whole. Which was what I was referring to. Quote
Hate The Fake Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Illegals need to go back, Yes they fill some bad jobs. But thats only 1 piece of the puzzle. Now consider what else they bring. Crime, Welfare (i definitely know this), dont pay taxes, and slows down the education process (has to do with the No child left behind act) Not to mention higher car insurance, get them the help out of the country already. Edited February 11, 2009 by Hate The Fake Quote
»Lynx Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 I can't be arsed to read this topic, but... 60K-100K a year Americans cleaning toilets? Reality check, anyone? -L Quote
FMBI Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 Illegals need to go back, Yes they fill some bad jobs. But thats only 1 piece of the puzzle. Now consider what else they bring. Crime, Welfare (i definitely know this), dont pay taxes, and slows down the education process (has to do with the No child left behind act) Not to mention higher car insurance, get them the help out of the country already. That's what people like to say - unfortunately, it's neither true nor relevant. Most immigrants (depending on country) have lower crime and drug rates, don't use welfare, and, while they may not pay taxes, they contribute "free" economic activity. Granted, this is a highly centralized benefit, since it goes only to employers dodging the laws and "steals jobs from hardworking Americans etc etc etc", but it's still there - under conservative economic theory, therefore, everyone wins. Also, are you nuts? Illegal immigrants are destroying our education process? I can think of a few reasons that, on the surface, could be used to justify this statement, but there's no way you could possibly justify a drawn out argument for this. @ Veg - No, I'm not saying "let's not do something about them because that's the easiest thing to do," I'm saying "let's not do anything about them because if we do, we're going to fuck Central America, the Caribbean, and our own borders for the next 15 years." Think about the situation. Right now it's virtually stable, even with all our (often hyped up) problems. However, if you deport or otherwise remove, let's say, 500,000 people (which is probably the most it would be possible to do before the end of the recession, even with a police state), but you push 15 million more Latinos in other countries into poverty, what's your long term net benefit? Severe diplomatic pain, destruction of trading partner's economies, 5 million more immigrants as soon as the recession ends - it just makes no sense. Besides, like it or not, immigrants are a part of the economy. You can remove them and fill their jobs differently without an extraordinary amount of effort, but it's always made more sense to say "you're here, now declare yourself, get an education, and move towards a better job." That way, you can simply phase out the bad jobs (toilet cleaning or whatever) altogether, through automation or some other process, while still retaining new labor that, generally, has picked up language and cultural skills that a new tide of immigrants, even legal ones, may not have. But then, that's simply based on the theory that people will do whatever's most efficient and sensible - the way the national debate on this topic has proceeded, unfortunately, suggests otherwise. Quote
Tigron-X Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 I say honor the common law right to travel and let them come. Quote
NBVegita Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Posted February 11, 2009 Most immigrants (depending on country) have lower crime and drug rates, don't use welfare, and, while they may not pay taxes, they contribute "free" economic activity. Actually not true. Caucasians have the lowest crime rate in all of America except for Asian-Americans. Also the majority of illegal immigrants send money to their families in other countries, thus cutting out on taxes and deporting money with no return. It makes no sense to deport illegal immigrants? Why, do we as America need to be the charity of the world? We have enough problems maintaining our own citizens and now we have to worry about supporting another 5 million illegal citizens, who really don't contribute anything besides cheap labor for ethnically compromised businessmen? If Mexico/Central America is struggling that much, work with them to make it easier for immigrants to LEGALLY come to America. Just ignoring the illegal immigrants doesn't help anyone, well except for the illegals. The only reason why illegal immigrants are part of the economy is because they are illegal. A rancher can pay an illegal $3 a day to work his ranch, with no benefits or any paperwork and get a full days work. That immigrant becomes legal and now he has to pay him the federal minimum wage per hour and have him on his books. Quote
Tigron-X Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Most immigrants (depending on country) have lower crime and drug rates, don't use welfare, and, while they may not pay taxes, they contribute "free" economic activity. Actually not true. Caucasians have the lowest crime rate in all of America except for Asian-Americans. Also the majority of illegal immigrants send money to their families in other countries, thus cutting out on taxes and deporting money with no return. It makes no sense to deport illegal immigrants? Why, do we as America need to be the charity of the world? We have enough problems maintaining our own citizens and now we have to worry about supporting another 5 million illegal citizens, who really don't contribute anything besides cheap labor for ethnically compromised businessmen? If Mexico/Central America is struggling that much, work with them to make it easier for immigrants to LEGALLY come to America. Just ignoring the illegal immigrants doesn't help anyone, well except for the illegals. The only reason why illegal immigrants are part of the economy is because they are illegal. A rancher can pay an illegal $3 a day to work his ranch, with no benefits or any paperwork and get a full days work. That immigrant becomes legal and now he has to pay him the federal minimum wage per hour and have him on his books. How many people are actually "Caucasians." Because, I know I'm not white; I am kind of pinkish, tan brown. And I most certainly dont come from the Caucus Mountains near Georgia. What about these people you classify as "Asian-Americans." Do they not come from a tribe or a people like Manchuria for example? It's scary how this government herds people like wild beast. Why, do we as America need to be the charity of the world? The US corporate government has destroyed so many livlihoods around the world that it's pretty pompus to consider rectifying these abuses as charity. The only reason why illegal immigrants are part of the economy is because they are illegal. Funny that word "legal." Funnier still is the concept of "legalization." Think about it. Why would something need to be "legalized?" Sort of like the word "license," maybe? And if you don't know, a license grants someone permission to act in a certain capacity. It's a form of control. That which is unlawful can never be made legal; that which is considered illegal may however be lawful. It's all a matter of knowing who you are. As long as these people come in peace, they should be honored and respected. Edited February 11, 2009 by Tigron-X Quote
NBVegita Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Posted February 11, 2009 Tigron, As much as I respect your hippie love mentality the brutal truth is that things are not so simple. You register as a citizen of a country for many benefits, as well as limitations. Illegal immigrants have no labor laws. Legal immigrants/immigrant citizens have all federal and state labor laws.Illegal immigrants pay no taxes. Legal immigrants/immigrant citizens pay taxes.Illegal immigrants have basic human rights. Legal ... have the rights dictated by the U.S. constitution for American citizens.Illegal immigrants have no rights to social security, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, assisted living, credit, ect. (For the most part). Legal ... do.Illegal immigrants have no outlet for a legitimate job. Legal ... do. I mean I could go on and on. In reality knowing who you are, besides for your self esteem, doesn't get you anywhere. Funny that you use corporate and government as one entity, because anyone who knows the reality of the U.S. knows that while corporations, thus conglomerates of powerful people, hold a larger sway, but are surely no where near synonymous with our government. Argue the semantics/morality of grouping people together but every group of people is characterized in some way. You yourself without knowing group people as soon as you meet them/once you get to know them/once you know someone well. Ultimately ethnic grouping is just a broad basis to judge people from different racial/ethnic properties/backgrounds. This is the very basis of racism and is wrong, but it is also inevitable until people stop calling us by our past countries/continents of origin and start calling us what we really are, Americans. Even at that, just on a basis of crime as above, if a certain people will call racism towards their skin color, their will be statistics to prove why it's not racism just fact. If I had to bet, you'd be just as outraged to see "People who have extreme dark pigmentation in their skin, who most closely identify themselves as "black", commit more crimes than people with rather light (natural) pigmentation in their skin, who most closely identify themselves as "white"." Quote
Hate The Fake Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 Illegals need to go back, Yes they fill some bad jobs. But thats only 1 piece of the puzzle. Now consider what else they bring. Crime, Welfare (i definitely know this), dont pay taxes, and slows down the education process (has to do with the No child left behind act) Not to mention higher car insurance, get them the help out of the country already. That's what people like to say - unfortunately, it's neither true nor relevant. Most immigrants (depending on country) have lower crime and drug rates, don't use welfare, and, while they may not pay taxes, they contribute "free" economic activity. Granted, this is a highly centralized benefit, since it goes only to employers dodging the laws and "steals jobs from hardworking Americans etc etc etc", but it's still there - under conservative economic theory, therefore, everyone wins. Also, are you nuts? Illegal immigrants are destroying our education process? I can think of a few reasons that, on the surface, could be used to justify this statement, but there's no way you could possibly justify a drawn out argument for this. @ Veg - No, I'm not saying "let's not do something about them because that's the easiest thing to do," I'm saying "let's not do anything about them because if we do, we're going to fuck Central America, the Caribbean, and our own borders for the next 15 years." Think about the situation. Right now it's virtually stable, even with all our (often hyped up) problems. However, if you deport or otherwise remove, let's say, 500,000 people (which is probably the most it would be possible to do before the end of the recession, even with a police state), but you push 15 million more Latinos in other countries into poverty, what's your long term net benefit? Severe diplomatic pain, destruction of trading partner's economies, 5 million more immigrants as soon as the recession ends - it just makes no sense. Besides, like it or not, immigrants are a part of the economy. You can remove them and fill their jobs differently without an extraordinary amount of effort, but it's always made more sense to say "you're here, now declare yourself, get an education, and move towards a better job." That way, you can simply phase out the bad jobs (toilet cleaning or whatever) altogether, through automation or some other process, while still retaining new labor that, generally, has picked up language and cultural skills that a new tide of immigrants, even legal ones, may not have. But then, that's simply based on the theory that people will do whatever's most efficient and sensible - the way the national debate on this topic has proceeded, unfortunately, suggests otherwise. seriously are you even american cause at this point i dont believe so.I lived in arizona 20 years. Ive seen the differences in immigration that most will never see. Population ChangeBetween 2000 and 2006 Arizona increased its population by 20 percent, bringing Arizona's total population to approximately 6.2 million. In 2006 Arizona was the fastest growing state in the United States, and accounted for the fifth largest increase in numerical population size.2/ Approximately 16.8 percent of the total population increase between 2000 and 2006 in Arizona was directly attributable to immigrants. FAIR estimates the illegal alien population in 2005 at 489,000, which is the 6th largest in the U.S among the FAIR estimate. This number is 73% above the U.S. government estimate of 283,000 in 2000, and 456% above the 1990 estimate of 88,000. According to an estimate of the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2005 there were an estimated 400,000 to 450,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona. That ranked fifth among illegal alien populations in the United States in the PEW estimate.3/ FAIR estimates in 2004 that the taxpayers of Arizona spent $748.3 million per year on illegal aliens and their children in public schools Health Care: Arizona hospitals spend $150 million annually to provide care to illegal aliens, according to the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. 5/ Some hospitals in rural counties have had to scale down or discontinue some services for the general population in order to continue to pay for care for illegal aliens.6/ Not to mention the shit tons of other information. Yes lets sacrafice our lively hoods and economy on people who dont help our country at all. Quote
Tigron-X Posted February 12, 2009 Report Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) As much as I respect your hippie love mentality the brutal truth is that things are not so simple. No, things aren't so simple, and it would be pretty presumptuous of me to think so. But do you truly know how complicated things really are? And reserving the right of self-preservation and self-determination aren't of a hippie love mentality. You register as a citizen of a country for many benefits, as well as limitations. So you naively assume, but I'm sure at no fault of your own, especially if you've been educated in these government run public school systems. What benefit does one truly gain by surrendering his/her sovereignty for the status of a subject? And if you claim to be a US citizen, do you really think that means you're a citizen of a country? Because I tell you, with such a claim you are claiming the citizenship of a corporation. Go to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) ( A ) ( B ) ( C ). It is stated unequivocally that the United States is a corporation. Illegal immigrants have no labor laws. Legal immigrants/immigrant citizens have all federal and state labor laws.But they have common law. And if they have a treaty, well that may even be better. Illegal immigrants pay no taxes. Legal immigrants/immigrant citizens pay taxes. As they have no representation, why should they be expected to pay any taxes? Illegal immigrants have basic human rights. Legal ... have the rights dictated by the U.S. constitution for American citizens. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights. It legislates the power of government. In other words, it dictates the rights of government. However, if you claim US citizenship, then you fall under the 14th Amendment, thus granting the government jurisdiction over you as you have become a ward of the State, which transliterates into 'commercial property.' As such, Civil Rights are assigned to you. As a freeman, however, you have God-given rights or birth rights which, however, is subject to you having the wit to claim them against an oppressive force. There is a legal maxim, and I paraphrase: That which is created can never be greater than the creator. Just as we can never be greater than God, these legal fictions which are created by men, these corporate entities, which exist only in the minds of men, can never be greater than the man, unless you consent to it which, mind you, can be gained by tacit assent. Illegal immigrants have no rights to social security, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, assisted living, credit, ect. (For the most part). Legal ... do. And who in their right mind would want such things? The land provides everything I need. But if you take the land from under me, and in turn dictate how I am to survive and live, then you have taken away from me self-determination and self-preservation and in turn made me dependent upon you for my life and liberties. Illegal immigrants have no outlet for a legitimate job. Legal ... do. No man wants a job. Every man wants life and prosperity for themselves and their loved ones, and most are willing to work for it. And, in the case of these "illegal immigrants," that you would spit on before help, are forced to turn to these life threatening avenues for survival. They cross rough terrain and put their lives at risk in order to sustain the life of their families. There is a reason they are forced to take on such risks. There is a reason their land back home cannot sustain their lives. And I'm sure it has a lot to do with the US's control over trade within the region. I mean I could go on and on. In reality knowing who you are, besides for your self esteem, doesn't get you anywhere. Knowing who you are, i.e. your status, allows you to govern yourself. It allows you to defend against oppression because it prevents another body from claiming jurisdiction over you as if you were a wild animal or of a lesser being. If jurisdiction is gained over you, then that body can and will claim the right to adjudicate against you in its favor with prejudice if need be and without recourse or remedy, unless you can claim your status as a soveriegn lord. A sui juris. Funny that you use corporate and government as one entity, because anyone who knows the reality of the U.S. knows that while corporations, thus conglomerates of powerful people, hold a larger sway, but are surely no where near synonymous with our government. Yeah... and I bet when you read UNITED STATES CODE Title 28 3002 (15) ( A ) ( B ) ( C ) your perception of reality changed. If not, then that's just willful blindness. The reality of the matter is that there is a de facto government and a de jure government. Argue the semantics/morality of grouping people together but every group of people is characterized in some way. You yourself without knowing group people as soon as you meet them/once you get to know them/once you know someone well. Ultimately ethnic grouping is just a broad basis to judge people from different racial/ethnic properties/backgrounds. This is the very basis of racism and is wrong, but it is also inevitable until people stop calling us by our past countries/continents of origin and start calling us what we really are, Americans. Even at that, just on a basis of crime as above, if a certain people will call racism towards their skin color, their will be statistics to prove why it's not racism just fact. If I had to bet, you'd be just as outraged to see "People who have extreme dark pigmentation in their skin, who most closely identify themselves as "black", commit more crimes than people with rather light (natural) pigmentation in their skin, who most closely identify themselves as "white"." I'm not outraged or offended by another's ignorance. Using such terms as 'black' or 'white' to identify one's race is a misnomer and a reflection of one's ignorance, just as is the use of such terms as Caucasian, Asian-American, African-American. The color of one's skin has nothing to do with race. Are you a hue-man? Or a man? A human has basic human rights just as an animal has basic animal rights, except a human is an extraordinary animal, thus has "human" rights. Are you acting under the color of a man, e.g. white man, black man? Because in law, "color" is synonymous with appearance. In other words are you acting under the appearance of a man, but are truly an animal of white or black origin that is found in the Americas? Who are you? By the way, in matters of law, rarely is it 'just' semantics, or semantics at all. Edited February 12, 2009 by Tigron-X Quote
Tigron-X Posted February 12, 2009 Report Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) Fin smurfed? No they are not. The concept that if you allow all illegal immigrants to enter the country and assume they'll be "good/moral" people and will not cause harm economically or otherwise to American citizens is. Also to believe that people will magically treat everyone "as they would have them threat themselves" is another hippie mentality that simply does not happen. And your prejudice and fears should be labeled as what? As that is all you're essentially presenting here, there is nothing for me to weigh in on, other than the economy. And to say the least, the stability of the US economy is more at danger because of it's fiat currency based monetary system than some immigrants coming in and becoming part of the workforce. Ok, I'll get into the semantics of a corporation or not later, but regardless of if you're a citizen of a "government", "corporation", "government run corporation", "corporation run government, or any other damn way you want to describe it there are THOUSANDS of positive impacts to being a citizen. I mean I listed a few before but unless we want this topic to go on for pages I don't really think I need to keep elaborating on the benefits of being a citizen of an "authority". When there no longer is equal consideration, then these presumed benefits are no longer benefits. The agreement becomes or always has been an unconscious bargain. Ok they have common law eh? How is that enforced? If they have a treaty...how is that to be enforced? Wait...it's the government that has to enforce these laws/treaties. With out government support, immigrants have absolutely nothing. If the government isn't willing to stop me from shooting an illegal immigrant, then he has no "real" right not to be shot. You fail to see that you only ever have an illusion of rights. No matter how righteous your religious beliefs may be, they don't grant you anything. They may make you feel better by stating "Oh they will be punished in the afterlife". Well that's fine an dandy if that's what you believe, but that does nothing to stop a man, even a singular man from taking any and every "right" you have away from you, simply because he has the power to do so. Again I don't feel I need to elaborate this fundamental as it has been elaborated through human history for several millennia. The point is that being they pay no taxes, yet they tax our governmental system, they cost working Americans like myself and every other American with a job money. The government is a legal fiction. As all legal fictions cannot move themselves, someone has to move it. This is why 'motions' are filed or made in a court. In common law, you or another are required to file charges against a violator, unless there is some contract that takes precedence. "If the government isn't willing to stop me from shooting an illegal immigrant, then he has no "real" right not to be shot." What you fail to realize is that the given individual is a lawful immigrant. Issues of legality are contractual. By what authority do you have the right to execute or murder or kill another? "You fail to see that you only ever have an illusion of rights." Spoken like a true tyrant! You have no basis in law to boast such a claim. If you have a problem with these immigrants gaining the "benefits" you pay for, then incorporate them into your government. However, do not think for one second that such action won't come at a cost of your liberties. As for treaties:From Article 6 of the United States Constitution: (underline emphasis added) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Ha. HaHa. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. Yes because the Jews were able to look at Hitler and say "God gives me these rights, just try and take em from me!!!". Well he did. As stated above, the only REAL rights you have and those dictated upon you by other men. If other men state you have/don't have a right and have the power to enforce it, those are your REAL rights. Yes you can revolt. That is how America was created. That is one right they cannot take away from you. Yet in most cases in order to revolt successfully you must make great sacrifices, including the lives of your friends and family. Under the right circumstances it is most worth it. Until those circumstances occur you are at the mercy of your peers who run the government to grant you the "rights" you want. That's all elementary conjecture. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!" If you don't know why I say that, then I'll give you a hint. "Your papers, sir." If that's not helpful, then try looking up Nuremberg Laws. To say the least, Germany was no longer a republic by the time Hitler took over. What you speak of is tyrany. It's great that you can live out of a log cabin you made with no steel tools and hunt wild animals in the woods with a bow and arrow, while washing your clothes down by the stream. That is not a realistic dream for the majority of people. Nor is it realistic that you can accomplish that. I do support welfare for those who need it and you will always, as a whole, need to rely on other men to keep the standard of living you wish to have. Could I spend years building my own house from scratch? Well sure. I'd do it. Or I could pay someone else to do it, who's life has been spent on this trade have it done more efficiently and provide income for another man so that he can support his family. Nice rant. But last I checked the minerals needed to make steel come out of the land. So I think you missed the point. To give you a better perspective, Mohandas Gandhi, in protest to British rule in India, walked roughly 250 miles to the Dandi Salt March to make salt. So what, he made salt; big deal, right? Well, the British had a monopoly on salt. The making of it was outlawed so that the British could control the trade of the commodity. Of course, in India, salt is very much needed otherwise you would die from dehydration. When the people of India realized that it was their right to make salt, and trade it at will, it threatened the monopoly. In response, the British tried to shut down any and all opperations. However, their own injustice was eventually revealed as the rule of law prevailed, thanks to Gandhi. False. Everyman wants a avenue to prosperity. Short of playing the lotto everyday you will need a job or a trade to accomplish that. In fact I know many a man who has retired and then taken a part time job doing something they enjoy (photography, choreography, ect.) because they still WANT to work. I'm sorry that I find it hard to lend compassion to a poor immigrant when we can't even assist our own poor in America. I know how hard it is to be poor. Unfortunately I can't stand up to support the poor of other nations when we can't support our own people. As brutal as it sounds, governments primary concern is for THEIR CITIZENS, not other countries/governments citizens.Yes, every man wants an avenue to prosperity. Same thing I said. The difference, however, is that I realize a "job" will not get you there. A career in a particular field may get you there if you're lucky enough. However, men rarely prosper in jobs. They survive, and even their family might survive. But rarely do they prosper. The lack of prosperity that comes from having a job is due to over-taxation and the fiat currency based monetary system, not immigrants coming into the country. Again, knowing who you are is great. If when someone comes to oppress you with force and you decide that it is worth giving your life so that no other man will dictate what "rights" you will ever have, well then that's lovely, you would be dead as a child. No matter how idealistic you view it, man will always govern man until man is no more. Is all oppression limited to force?And by what authority does man claim the right to rule over another man? First, this code is very vague. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...02----000-.html Very rarely is the law ever vague. Broad, yes. But rarely ever vague. I'm not sure how the "United States" is an agency of the United States or how the "United States" is an instrumentality of the United States? Also I have spent hours this morning trying to research as to how our government is/became a "federal corporation" let alone exactly what a federal corporation in the governmental sense is. The only article I can find that even remotely declares as to how the government became a "federal corporation" doesn't cite sources and claims an act that had no impact on the matter is the cause. Could you please elaborate on each of the points in this paragraph. I mean it's great to be a conspiracist and all, but the other question I have is how, under the pretense that the United States is actually a corporation, has that really effected us as a country? In fact I would like you to cite 2-3 direct examples with sources please. I mean for such a severe accusation, this should be minuscule evidence to produce. In matters of law it's ALWAYS semantics.I give you insight into the law, or the republic, not the democracy that you're so accustomed to, and now I'm a conspiracist? Now, that's putting the wagon before the horse. Have you tried looking into Lincoln and the Civil War and Reconstruction? As silly as this may sound, Wizard of Oz even. All those characters were inspired by political cartoons. All the information is out there. It's not hidden by any means. It's just a matter of awareness. This information isn't main stream; that's all. And a lot of that is due to the public school system. The public school system has been designed to prepare citizens for the workforce. "..has that really effected us as a country?" I think you mean affected. Of course it has, and in good ways and bad ways depending on your status. That's why knowing who you are is so important. In most cases, i.e. most people, you're a slave. Don't confuse slavery with involuntery servitude. Involuntery servitude is what a lot of people from Africa experienced when they were brought over to North America. Slavery is entered into by consent. Of course, the term 'slave' is no longer in use just as the term 'serf' isn't. The politically correct term is human resource. And then once you start getting into licensing, it becomes more complicated. Now, I know I haven't seriously committed to your request. But, give it time. Again no matter how you try to idealize it, men will always judge men based on any differences, big, small, short, tall, hair color, skin color, ect. Animals do the same. To deny that is to deny our very being. By what authority is what it comes down to. Edited February 12, 2009 by Tigron-X Quote
NBVegita Posted February 13, 2009 Author Report Posted February 13, 2009 I'm not sure if you read that correctly. What are you trying to say here? My point is that common law and treaties must be enforced by an authority, the authority in the case is the U.S. government. With whoever has subject matter jurisdiction. In nearly every system in the world, that would be the government or governing body. Law:Spoiler! --Click here to view--Law1 /lɔ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [law] Show IPA Pronunciation–noun1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. You're still assuming that their entry is unlawful. As there are literally 2 dozens explanations I'll only post the first definition, which again proves my point. I seriously don't know how you're still arguing this. I'm not arguing that ALL immigrants are illegal. When there no longer is equal consideration, then these presumed benefits are no longer benefits. The agreement becomes or always has been an unconscious bargain. Oh I understood the philosophy of your statement, I want the applicability elaborated. That's what you, more or less, believe, right? Yes and no. Philosophically, as you stated, a man who limits another man's right is a tyrant. In this case it is a conglomerate of our peers, ourselves included, limiting all of our rights, under the perceived notion of stability and security. Because I didn't say men rarely prosper. You implicitly said: However, men rarely prosper in jobs. ... But rarely do they prosper. The lack of prosperity that comes from... You stated that men rarely prosper in jobs, I stated a case stating that it is the rarity to not prosper in a job, or that it is the fault of the man's expectation of prosperity as to if he is actually prosperous. Also the only difference between a job and a career is your perception of it. Now I ask you how "They are one of many contributing factors." becomes "...country become the root of any of our economical difficulties"? So we're all ruled by the barrel of a gun. And you're ok with that? Essentially yes, assuming barrel of a gun is a metaphor for any type of force. Nothing will ever be able to abolish that. You show me on case in all of history where a civilization survived even a nominal time with no army, no police/enforcement, no magistrate and I'll concede my argument. That's why I started opening up law books. I still challenge you to define how the United States is a "Federal Corporation", what by definition that "Federal Corporation" is and just how we became that "Federal Corporation". Rape is unlawful. Can't be made legal. Law is enforced by an authority. If no authority enforces it, it is not a law. If there is no law protecting your right, someone is free to take that right from you (in essence), unless under your own power/authority you can prevent it. Your "inalienable rights" no matter how deserved and justified are only present because someone enforces them for you. You may always "have" your rights in the theoretical sense, but if you can't fully exercise them, you applicably, don't. Try a legal dictionary if these definitions aren't clear enough for you. Please cite me a legal source to investigate and also elaborate, with examples, how the majority of people are in slavery. Also #1 doesn't because there is no possible way to correlate the U.S. population as being abjectly subservient. In a simple way my quote in reference to my previous statement was to state that simply because man does not constantly rebel against that which he believes unjust does not mean he is a sheep in the system or subservient to the same system. If every man combated every law or provision he felt was even lightly unjust, we would be in a constant state of anarchy. Quote
Bak Posted February 13, 2009 Report Posted February 13, 2009 I'm surprised how many people are disagreeing with Veg on this one. Illegal immigrants do pay some taxes like sales tax. Also, they're good for businesses because they do the same work as an American worker for less money and benefits. They also do consume some resources while here like food and board which feeds money back into other businesses. Quote
NBVegita Posted February 13, 2009 Author Report Posted February 13, 2009 I do concede that they are not wholly bad, but I feel the harm out weighs the good. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.