The $1 Billion Dollar - 700 Mile fence on the Mexican Border and more

[irvman21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why should the citizens of the United States allow anyone who wants to come here the ability to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because freedom to move on public property (and, yes, across the border into the United States) is a fundamental human right that cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Why should someone born on the opposite side of an arbitrary line be prevented from living where they choose, even if it is across said border?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should never have asked. Your response makes it clear that there is no point to us having this discussion. I respect your opinion and right to express it, but I cannot begin to explain how ridiculous I find it.

As a side note, if it were 11 million uneducated, unskilled, poor, english speaking white people, I would still feel the same way. It's not about race for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may feel the same way if they were uneducated, unskilled, poor, english speaking white people, but I doubt Felix does, as he's willing to make up statistics to support his "brown people are criminals" theory.

But the bottom line is that those 11 million uneducated, unskilled, poor people are 1) the lynchpin of the US economy that allow you (presumably an educated, skilled person) to enjoy many things you may take for granted -and- 2) in many cases have improved their own lives by entering the U.S.; even at sub-minimum-wage, America is still the land of opportunity for those willing to chase it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even people who support unabated immigration and argue that they are beneficial to the economy have to admit that the law of diminishing returns applies. The first low wage worker provides great benefit with low cost. The 100 millionth low wage worker does not. I would argue that we passed the benefical point several years and millions of people ago.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]

First, is it possible in your view to want to enforce immigrations laws without being accused of not liking "brown people"?
Second, the history of the world shows that language is the glue that holds people togther. Countries that do not have a common language are more likely to disintergrate into chaos and civil war.... The term is Balkanization.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Theoretically, yes, it is possible to oppose immigration without being a racist. In current times, you have to present extraordinary evidence to the contrary before I believe that your anti-immigration stance is motivated on anything other than racism.

2) Do you have any proof of this theory? The largest wars of the 19th and 20th centuries were obviously the result of nationalism, or imperialism, or political schisms (see Civil War, US and any "communism revolution" ever). Nothing to do with official languages there.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Even people who support unabated immigration and argue that they are beneficial to the economy have to admit that the law of diminishing returns applies. The first low wage worker provides great benefit with low cost. The 100 millionth low wage worker does not. I would argue that we passed the benefical point several years and millions of people ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain the continued demand for low wage workers exists in many American industries.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]

Even people who support unabated immigration and argue that they are beneficial to the economy have to admit that the law of diminishing returns applies. The first low wage worker provides great benefit with low cost. The 100 millionth low wage worker does not. I would argue that we passed the benefical point several years and millions of people ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this depend on there being a limited number of low-wage jobs? There is no low-wage job shortage here in the US, and I doubt there ever will be.

Anyway, human rights aren't dependent on how "useful" someone is....but now we're heading towards territories you feel are "ridiculous" and we're just going in circles.

[irvman21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even people who support unabated immigration and argue that they are beneficial to the economy have to admit that the law of diminishing returns applies. The first low wage worker provides great benefit with low cost. The 100 millionth low wage worker does not. I would argue that we passed the benefical point several years and millions of people ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain the continued demand for low wage workers exists in many American industries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you certain that the benefit of having more millions more low wage workers come here outweighs the costs of adding millions of poor people?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Theoretically, yes, it is possible to oppose immigration without being a racist. In current times, you have to present extraordinary evidence to the contrary before I believe that your anti-immigration stance is motivated on anything other than racism.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you get a chance to, take a college couse on Logic. These classes are usually given by the philosophy dept. In this class you will learn it is impossible to disprove a negative.
e.g.
You can't prove there is no Santa Claus.
You can't prove there is no Tooth Fairy.

The burden of proof is on those who say there is a Santa Claus and a Tooth Fairy. Attacking people's motives without without evidence is not an ethical way of supporting your position..... Attack my arguments if you wish but don't attack my motives.....

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Felix_Nietsche

[/ QUOTE ]


I think your over reacting dude. So he guesstimeated the 1-2%. So what?

I agree with the moderators assessment that you are inciting a problem in this tread and you should drop it. BTW I think this poll post of yours might qualify for a banning since it is obvioulsy so biased and foolish. I think this is a troll post you made. Knock it off please.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your over reacting dude. So he guesstimeated the 1-2%. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]
The subject of politics is not like mathematics where you can prove your points beyond any doubt.
Politics falls primarily in the realm of opinion. I did not realize that I'm required to provide a disclaimer everytime I utter an opinion. I clarified that the 1-2% was my own personal estimate.

If you study the election of JFK over Nixon, it was asserted that dead voters put Kennedy over-the-top in Illinois. Nixon was urged to contest the election results by examing the voters rolls in Illinois but he chose not to.... Nixon had one thing that Gore does not.....CLASS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1960
"Controversies
Some Republicans alleged that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud especially in Texas and Illinois. There is no certainty that Nixon would have won both Texas and Illinois (which he would have had to do to win the electoral vote). What is certain, however, is that in Illinois, Kennedy won by a bare 9,000 votes, and Mayor Daley, who held back Chicago's vote until late in the evening, provided an extraordinary Cook County margin of victory of 450,000 votes. The Republican party urged Nixon to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of some of the votes for Kennedy, especially in the pivotal states of Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election. Nixon publicly refused to call for a recount, saying it would cause a constitutional crisis. However, privately, he encouraged GOP Chair Thruston Morton to push for a recount, which Morton did in 11 states, keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961; the only result was the loss of the State of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount petitioned by the Kennedy campaign."

The recount was usless since they were re-counting dead voters in Illinois. It was suspected LBJ used under-handed methods to give Texas to Kennedy but this could not be proved....

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 2000 mile border wall will stop roughly 98%+ of illegals at the southern border.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ban him now!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't need to be banned for this IMO. IMO it is pretty clear that he is proposing his own personal estimates. IMO he is not attempting to assert these estimates as factual and backed up by unbiased reputable parties who have studied the issue.

There is a difference from a politically savvy person deliberately using false statisticss to decieve and a non savvy person making a statement that includes a statistic that on the surface is pretty clearly his own opinion.

Since it upsets you so much why don't you consider taking a few minutes and rationally explaining to him why it would be better if he did not use statistical estimates he makes up without also clearly stating that the estimates are his opinion and may be way off.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This issue is very, very big here in Arizona. There is a literal flood of border crossings. Nobody knows how many or their backgrounds. Suppose the number is 1,000,000/year which is pretty conservative
Wiki . If they were all massed on the border and were going to cross on Jan. 1st would you propose doing something about it? I do. If we need/want the immigrants that is fine with me but what's going on now is ridiculous. I'd spend whatever it took on a wall. Once the flood is stopped a sane immigration policy can be worked out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it just be much easier to impose criminal sanctions and extremely high fines on companies that hire illegal immigrants, so as to make it economically unfeasible for companies to hire people without being damned sure they are legally alowed to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like that was tried 20 years ago. Some would say it wasn't tough enough. OK. Try it again and re-visit the issue in another 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

If businesses are fined the costs get passed on to the customers so in effect it is a tax on citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

If businesses aren't fined the costs of health care, welfare, education, and every other social service gets passed on to everyone and is in actuality a tax on citizens. Business owners using illegal workers reap the largest benefits, at the expense of average taxpayers, this is unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why is X (fines on businesses that will be a de facto tax on citizens) better than Y (keeping the status quo where people who came here illegally are getting benefits of our social services)? And more importantly IMO why is there not a better way to deal with the issue where Y is reduced and we avoid X?

And unless you can show evidence of how business owners are the 'largest benefitiaries' you should clearly state this is an opinion.

We all benefit by lower costs of foods and services. We also all loose by higer social service costs. This issue is not cut and dry and I do not take anyone who asserts it is to be of sound mind.