Immigration explained

[Cryozombie]

You said very clearly that saying it was not a criminal matter would not stand up to the "reasonable person test'. Obviously making your point that you believe it to be a criminal matter. Playing semantics is rather difficult when your original statment was extremely clear.

If you don't want to play semantics, then you better stop quoting a portion of what I said and changing its meaning by exclusion.

If you look back at that post you keep (mis)quoting me from, you will see that my comment about the resonable person test was not about whether or not immigration was a crime, but rather a response to Bushidomartialarts claim that no one was saying it wasnt...

If I may be so bold as to quote what I said as a whole...

So if the argument is that it'snot a criminal matter, and that labeling the people who violate it as criminals is wrong... well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.

Notice this part:

well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.

And you clearly see if you do not OMIT the portion you did that reads

that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.

You see that the comment about the reasonable person test is NOT aboout what you keep claiming I said.

Thanks for playing, tho.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I have a question: For those of you stating that illegal immigration is not wrong, then why "force" those same illegals to become citizens, or offer a path to citizenship (a la Bush).

If you think about it, for illegal immigrants to become citizen's would only hurt them. They would then have to pay taxes. Although they make less than the minimum wage, this is somewhat made up for by the fact that they don't have to pay a minimum marginal tax rate of about 15% if they earn over $7,550.

And let's not forget the free health care, educational expenses, and other things (such as roadways, signal lights, government facilities, policing, fire-fighting) that go along with not paying taxes as they do not.

The only "good" thing about illegal immigration is that they cut down on the price of goods and services in this country. And even that is subject to debate when considering the job losses suffered by American citizens. Not only that, but the lowering of wages given to ALL people due to the influx of workers into a labor pool.

And illegal Mexicans send most of their money to Mexico, resulting in an overall loss of circulating money within the United States itself, which lowers the economy. In fact, money sent from the U.S. to Mexico represents their second highest income of their GDP.

And the biggest difference between the relationship of the U.S. to Mexico vs. the U.S. to Canada or between E.U. States is the disparity in standard of living. This causes and immediate gap between what Mexican citizens make versus what they MAY provide to the U.S. economy.

Coming to this thread late, so my thought on this are kinda jumbled, but I'd be willing to expand on any topic if requested.

 

[Ray]

Somewhere, somehow, I got the idea that congress had control over immigration and policies of it. Just as the pres has foreign policy as one of his constitutionally defined responsibilites.

However, my legal expert in constitutional law has gone home; or is enroute or has been pulled over for driving under the influence; so I guess I'll never know for sure.

 

[Amazon]

If you don't want to play semantics, then you better stop quoting a portion of what I said and changing its meaning by exclusion.

If you look back at that post you keep (mis)quoting me from, you will see that my comment about the resonable person test was not about whether or not immigration was a crime, but rather a response to Bushidomartialarts claim that no one was saying it wasnt...

If I may be so bold as to quote what I said as a whole...



Notice this part:



And you clearly see if you do not OMIT the portion you did that reads



You see that the comment about the reasonable person test is NOT aboout what you keep claiming I said.

Thanks for playing, tho.

The addition that you quoted doesn't change anything. It still says that you think that claiming it's not a criminal matter wouldn't stand up to the reasonable person test. You then just went on to add that it sounds to you like he is making the claim that it's not a criminal matter (I guess implying that he is not a reasonable person).

 

[Cryozombie]

The addition that you quoted doesn't change anything..

You can't be ****ing serious.

Oh... wait, I get it... your siggy sums it all up.

Here. Lemme make this REALLY REALLY SIMPLE FOR YOU...

I said that the reasonable person test could be applied to EMPTY HANDS COMMENT to determine IF HE WAS SAYING IMMIGRATION WASN'T A CRIME, in response to BUSHIDOMARTIALARTS claim that NO ONE WAS SAYING THAT IT WASN'T A CRIME...

GET IT YET? IT had NOTHING, let me say it again, NOTHING to do with what my position was on the subject, I WAS CORRECTING BUSHIDOMARTIALARTS on his assumption that NO ONE WAS SAYING THAT IMMIGRATION WASN'T CRIMINAL.

Hold on... I'm gonna say it for you ONE MORE TIME...

No I'm not... it, and you... are not worth anymore of my time.

 

[Marginal]

I have a question: For those of you stating that illegal immigration is not wrong, then why "force" those same illegals to become citizens, or offer a path to citizenship (a la Bush).

Force?

If you think about it, for illegal immigrants to become citizen's would only hurt them. They would then have to pay taxes. Although they make less than the minimum wage, this is somewhat made up for by the fact that they don't have to pay a minimum marginal tax rate of about 15% if they earn over $7,550.

They actually do have to pay some taxes as it is.

The only "good" thing about illegal immigration is that they cut down on the price of goods and services in this country. And even that is subject to debate when considering the job losses suffered by American citizens. Not only that, but the lowering of wages given to ALL people due to the influx of workers into a labor pool.

Why do you want to stifle the free market?

 

[Empty Hands]

You can't be ****ing serious.

Oh... wait, I get it... your siggy sums it all up.

That was uncalled for...and sexist.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Force?

The current debate here, as I see it, is about whether and to what effect illegal immigrants have on this country, and what should be done about it.

The "pro-illegal" side states that those illegals in this country should be allowed to become citizens. Their consideration is that if they don't become citizens, they will be considered second-class citizens, denied governmental protections such as minimum wage, health care, driver's license. In a sence, they want to "force" illegals to become citizens.

They actually do have to pay some taxes as it is.

I won't disregard that some illegals pay some sort of taxes. However, there is a wide disparity between what they pay as illegals, and what they would pay as legal citizens. And then there is the disparity in what they provide the economy versus what they cost.

Why do you want to stifle the free market?

Who says I want to stifle the free market? But in order to stifle one, you have to have one first. I would argue that we do not, in fact, live in a free market society, much as we would like to claim that we do. We have too much government regulation to have one.

 

[Amazon]

You can't be ****ing serious.

Oh... wait, I get it... your siggy sums it all up.

Here. Lemme make this REALLY REALLY SIMPLE FOR YOU...

I said that the reasonable person test could be applied to EMPTY HANDS COMMENT to determine IF HE WAS SAYING IMMIGRATION WASN'T A CRIME, in response to BUSHIDOMARTIALARTS claim that NO ONE WAS SAYING THAT IT WASN'T A CRIME...

GET IT YET? IT had NOTHING, let me say it again, NOTHING to do with what my position was on the subject, I WAS CORRECTING BUSHIDOMARTIALARTS on his assumption that NO ONE WAS SAYING THAT IMMIGRATION WASN'T CRIMINAL.

Hold on... I'm gonna say it for you ONE MORE TIME...

No I'm not... it, and you... are not worth anymore of my time.

It's not my fault if you can't express yourself in a way that makes you understood. Perhaps you should better phrase yourself - because your post had a very clear meaning - and it isn't what you are saying here. If it isn't what you meant then maybe you need to read your posts a little more carefully.

You are the one that asked me to quote you and so I did. I have made my point in half as many lines as you have, with no emotional outbursts, personal insults, or sexist implications. Having self-important tantrums is only a detriment.

 

[shesulsa]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to a polite, respectful tone and posting manner. Read the rules and feel free to use the Ignore featurer found on each user's profile.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assistant Administrator

 

[Cryozombie]

Yes mom. I'm sorry.


​

 

[Marginal]

The current debate here, as I see it, is about whether and to what effect illegal immigrants have on this country, and what should be done about it.

The "pro-illegal" side states that those illegals in this country should be allowed to become citizens. Their consideration is that if they don't become citizens, they will be considered second-class citizens, denied governmental protections such as minimum wage, health care, driver's license. In a sence, they want to "force" illegals to become citizens.

It's a fairly limited sense as far as senses go. Most illegal immigrants would prefer to be able to come and work without having to worry about immigration officials, paying coyotes etc.

Who says I want to stifle the free market? But in order to stifle one, you have to have one first. I would argue that we do not, in fact, live in a free market society, much as we would like to claim that we do. We have too much government regulation to have one.

I can only assume you want to stifle the free market because you are upset by a situation that the market created.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

It's a fairly limited sense as far as senses go. Most illegal immigrants would prefer to be able to come and work without having to worry about immigration officials, paying coyotes etc.



I can only assume you want to stifle the free market because you are upset by a situation that the market created.

Actually, I never said, nor implied, that I was upset. Please don't make those kind of asumptions.

And the free market did not create this situation. As I said, we do not have a free market. We have a heavily regulated market in which the government routinely makes decisions for the market. For example, look at the regulation of the interest rate by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Not exactly a free market.

So, to your point, the free marked did not create this situation. Government regulation did. Even if you want to call the government regulation of immigration part of the "free market".

 

[Marginal]

So, to your point, the free marked did not create this situation. Government regulation did. Even if you want to call the government regulation of immigration part of the "free market".

The only reason they have jobs to steal is because people are hiring them to do the work. Given the current administration's free passes they routinely hand out to businesses, regs ont eh books aren't being especially well because of pressure form business. Business dictating the regs, is about as free market as it can get.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The only reason they have jobs to steal is because people are hiring them to do the work. Given the current administration's free passes they routinely hand out to businesses, regs ont eh books aren't being especially well because of pressure form business. Business dictating the regs, is about as free market as it can get.

Personally, I think you are speaking in conspiracy theory gobbly-gook. Although I do believe that Bush in particular is sucking up to the corporations, overall, I don't believe that to be the case, and I would be interested if you could come up with FACTS to support your claim.

In fact, such things as OSHA requirements, building codes, EPA requirement (especially that one), etc. are pretty much (yes, there are exceptions) being followed.

When the Federal Reserve dictates interests rates, that's not free market economics. When car insurance is a requirement, that is not free market. FDA regulations on drug manufacture and sales is not free market.

In the U.S., we do not have a free market system. And that includes such things as employment.