Immigration (1 Viewer)

[Rich]

[

Nothing. They were acts of war.

I see so you're saying the entire bombing campaign of bombing Germany and Japan were acts of anger

The Russians didn't even know of its existance.

How do you know this? Stalin was totally unmoved when informed of the existence of the bomb.

Have you ever considered why an atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin? Hmmm - the close proximity of allied countries perhaps

Well even an idiot could work that out, the bomb wasn't ready in time

 

[Pat Hartman]

I know there is an immigration problem, but when people start trying to bolster their arguments by branding a group of people who can't stand up for themselves with derogatory labels, it just irks me. It's a bad form of argument and it ... irks me.

Please tell me where I said anything derogatory.

So, are you saying that we should reward lawbreakers with amnesty? That's what a guest-worker program that includes existing illegals is. Exactly which laws of the United States should we ignore and which should we enforce? My brother was one of the workers at a chicken processing plant who was laid off so the owner could hire illegal immigrants. How should I feel about that? I'm taking it personally because I am sending him money to keep him from starving. At the other end of the financial spectrum, several of my good friends were laid off last year by a large corporation so they could be replaced with low paid H1b visa holders. To add insult to injury, they were forced to train their replacements. Should we enforce the provision in the visa law that specifically prohibits this? Or is this just another law that we should ignore?

I agree that we cannot simply send 11-20 million people home - wherever that might be. On the other hand, letting them stay rewards them for illegal behavior and sets a very bad precedent. I would not approve punitive measures against the illegals except to make it impossible for them to apply for citizenship from within the US but I do think that the only way to solve the problem is to make it so expensive for the employers of illegals that they may just as well hire citizens or legal residents.

BTW, statistics shown on CNN indicate that increasing farm worker pay by 40% would only increase the average family's grocery bill by $10 a year.

 

[dan-cat]

I see so you're saying the entire bombing campaign of bombing Germany and Japan were acts of anger

You've already quoted the final clause of the Potsdam declaration. Do I need to quote it again? You tell me how complete and utter destruction of an entire nation can be deemed as not an act of anger and I'll concede the point. The allies had embarked on a course of complete annihilation of the Japanese. Like I said over and over again, the a-bomb attacks were to go ahead regardless of the Potsdam declaration - regardless of any diplomatic process. Stimson said this himself. I know you don't believe him but there it is. I can't make you believe him. What I will do is add the War Secretary to the list of people who you think opinions are worthless.

Anyway this has nothing to do with Mexican illegals, so I'll let you have the last word and we'll call it quits.

 

[dan-cat]

Please tell me where I said anything derogatory.

Well you suggested that my American history was inadequate which kind of riled me up, however reading back on my posts it does seem that I've been overly aggressive so for that I apologise.

I think what I latched on to was this:

Mexicans live in dirtier conditions and are much less apt to follow generally excepted rules of society. Such as NOT leaving your empty beer bottle in the middle of a parking lot, or in the street. You would not believe the trash these people have left everywhere. Northern VA used to be a place of cleanliness and beauty, until the Mexicans started taking over.

which I understand is not something which you posted. However this is the kind of claptrap that springs out of immigration arguments. We have an immigration problem, fine, what irks me is that people have to resort to dehumanising people to improve their own standing. When the 'Mexicans' start garrotting the local population and decimating the US with smallpox come back to me (not you Pat) and we'll discuss it further.

So, are you saying that we should reward lawbreakers with amnesty? That's what a guest-worker program that includes existing illegals is. Exactly which laws of the United States should we ignore and which should we enforce?

This is my point. My point is that illegal immigrants have not been treated by the US as lawbreakers at all. If you ignore their legal status for years in favor of the benefits you reap from their cheap labor - don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to start citing the law when they start exercising their right to freedom of speech? This is a self-made problem. It's not the illegal immigrants fault. They've been simply living by the rules that we have applied to them for years.

So then they start marching the streets waving a few flags trying to make people aware that they actually exist and everybody starts citing the law that they're illegal and they don't have the right. Well I'm afraid they do have the right. We have permitted them to settle, given them jobs and housing, everything but the right to stand up for oneself. As soon as they ask for this, they become ungrateful, invasive, lecherous scumbags. Well I'm afraid that just doesn't cut the mustard with me. We have created this problem and we're going to have to sort it out. Starting with the acceptance of the fact that these illegals are actually human beings whom we have exploited for years. The situation is a mess but its a mess that we have created.

I'm sorry that your brother is suffering but its not the Mexicans fault, its big business. The boss decided that profits were more important than your brother's welfare. He didn't care that your brother was a US citizen and his replacements weren't. I know it's an emotive subject but in reality you should be sticking it to the plant boss. He doesn't give a damn about illegals and he doesn't give a damn about people like your brother. The illegals have been offered a subsistant living and they took it. It's supply and demand in human trafficking and it's despicable.

So with all due respect, please don't try and suggest that I don't respect the law. It's the failure of the upholding of the law that has caused this problem, not a bunch of PEOPLE waving flags in the street.

 

[FoFa]

I'm sorry that your brother is suffering but its not the Mexicans fault, its big business.

Sorry, typically NOT big business. Mostly small business. Big business has too many rules to follow as far as hiring is concerned, and are audited. Not the same for small business.
But you are correct in that the wages are lower, and that what makes a difference for the small businesses. In order to compete, they have to. Once one does it, it becomes impossible to compete with them as they can lower their cost. That does not make it everones fault because they want lower prices however. Given a choice you would take the lower offer for the same service/item, human nature.

The boss decided that profits were more important than your brother's welfare.

I disagree with you on this in that you are personalizing a thing that is not personal in this instance. Maybe for this one guy, but I highly doubt "the boss" singled him out. How ever profits are important. That is what keeps a company in business, and employing people. What happens when profits drop? Layoffs, and even go out of business. Who does that help? Companies are not in business to help the general population. They are in business to make money. To make money they have to employ people. The more money they make, the more people can be employed.

 

[jsanders]

Dan,

Up until now I thought to ignore your rather emotional slant on this as being just another’s ravings.

Now you’re quoting me and comparing it to a plague. Mostly your writing on the subject is an emotional diatribe of what I had previously posted; only I said it more succinctly.


There are two thing wrong with your writings, other than the absolute lack of logic.

First: behavior doesn’t have to be murderous to be considered undesirable.

And second: if you have had any experience with south of the border people you would know that they are content to live in unclean conditions and happy to bring that culture with them wherever they go.

You trying to be politically correct doesn’t make it right to usurp our culture with an inferior one.

If you want to blame the large corporations and the lack of will on our part fine, but don’t confuse the issues.

Why they’re here has nothing to do with the way they act when they’re here.

 

[jsanders]

Fofa,

Actually American big business does reap benefits from illegal immigration in many ways.

My business is in the new homes industry and I can tell you that the nation’s largest builders are getting very fat on the backs of illegal aliens.
.
80% of new homes in America are built by 20 builders; these builders hire subcontractors which in turn hire illegal aliens. The competition at that level is so intense that the subs have to use illegal immigrants. The subs make an upper middle class living, the large corporations make exorbitant profits, and the illegal aliens, well they make the same hourly wage that American workers made in the 80s.

By the way when I say exorbitant; here’s and example. Average new home in Northern Virginia is about $650,000, average profit is somewhere around $300,000, so you do the math on who is benefiting from the slavery of illegal immigrants.

 

[dan-cat]

Up until now I thought to ignore your rather emotional slant on this as being just another’s ravings.

Labelling me as a lunatic won't help your case I'm afraid. The fact that you place this at the beginning of your argument just broadcasts bad logic. Argumentum ad hominem. Try again.

Now you’re quoting me and comparing it to a plague. Mostly your writing on the subject is an emotional diatribe of what I had previously posted; only I said it more succinctly.

Sorry but I never started labelling 'Mexicans' with derogatory characteristics. So you can remove the patronising tone too please.

First: behavior doesn’t have to be murderous to be considered undesirable.

Completely missed the point didn't you? The point was that undesirable behaviour is not exclusive to a single culture. I wasn't trying to justify dirty living conditions, I was illustrating the point that being anti-social is a human characteristic not a Mexican one.

And second: if you have had any experience with south of the border people you would know that they are content to live in unclean conditions and happy to bring that culture with them wherever they go.

Argument from authority too huh? Yep your logic is real sound. We have a large Mexican population in our town. Some live in squalid conditions, others live in poor but tidy accomodation. Same goes for the white population in my town. However according to your impeccable logic , we have no illegal Mexicans in Kentucky.

You trying to be politically correct doesn’t make it right to usurp our culture with an inferior one.

Another piece of sound logic. This is called a Strawman argument by the way. Creating an argument to knock down which I never supported. Where did I say that the current culture should be usurped?

If you want to blame the large corporations and the lack of will on our part fine, but don’t confuse the issues.

What by refusing to agree with your principle that Mexicans are inferior? Well excuse me for debating the point. More bad logic I'm afraid - this one is called poisoning the well.

So far my knowledge on American History has been attacked, my argumentative skills have been derided and I have been suggested to be 'raving'. Would anybody actually care to logically debate against my point of view?

 

[dan-cat]

That does not make it everones fault because they want lower prices however. Given a choice you would take the lower offer for the same service/item, human nature.

Agreed. Just like you'd take a lower wage to get a job to feed your family. It's a 2 way relationship between the employer and the employed.

I disagree with you on this in that you are personalizing a thing that is not personal in this instance. Maybe for this one guy, but I highly doubt "the boss" singled him out.

But Fofa, I wasn't personalizing it. That was my point. The boss ignores the personal and legal issues in this case. Layoffs occur because of financial reasons not personal ones. Illegals are employed instead of legals for the exact same reason, however this is an illegal act in itself. The boss doesn't care about the welfare or the status of his employees. He cares solely about the profit.

Anyway thanks for disagreeing with me in a respectful manner.

 

[Kraj]

Well you suggested that my American history was inadequate which kind of riled me up, however reading back on my posts it does seem that I've been overly aggressive so for that I apologise.

That's why I like you. And while Pat's comment was a bit uncalled for, I think it's fair to say you were presenting a position that was as equally one-sided. My knowledge on the subject is not absolute, but it appears to me the circumstances behind dropping the atomic bomb and the ultimate judgement on what the motivations were is mostly a matter of opinion. Some people believed the war would have ended without it; some believe it was necessary to force an unconditional surrender from Japan. Both sides have plenty of evidence to support the claim, and suggesting one side is factual while claiming the opposite is false is fallacious enough to create the appearance of ignorance.

We have an immigration problem, fine, what irks me is that people have to resort to dehumanising people to improve their own standing.

While I think most people would agree it's wrong to draw conclusions about and entire population based on a small subgroup of that population, you can't really blame someone for forming an opinion based on their experiences. If Joe has repeatedly had poor experiences with Mexican immigrants leaving large amounts of garbage in the streets of his community, it may not be right to assume that all Mexicans behave the same way but his experiences says they do. Again, it may not be right, but it's hardly "dehumanizing".

When the 'Mexicans' start garrotting the local population and decimating the US with smallpox come back to me (not you Pat) and we'll discuss it further.

You know darn well this is a false argument. Pointing out one group is behaving or has behaved badly is not an excuse for another group to behave badly.

If you ignore their legal status for years in favor of the benefits you reap from their cheap labor - don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to start citing the law when they start exercising their right to freedom of speech?

Quite possibly. However, as it stands the Constitution only protects citizens of this country. People residing in the United States illegally have no right to free speech. Maybe they should, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

This is a self-made problem. It's not the illegal immigrants fault. They've been simply living by the rules that we have applied to them for years.

This is where my disagreement with you motivated me to post. Believe me, I certainly see your point of view and this is not a black and white issue, but you're blaming the victim here. The illegal immigrants came here knowing darn well what they were doing was wrong (at least from our point of view; I've already made a discussion about their possible point of view). Getting away with illegal behavior does not make it legal at any point in time, nor does it shift the blame. Does a person who speeds down the same road past the same cop every day have the right to complain when he gets pulled over? No.

 

[dan-cat]

That's why I like you. And while Pat's comment was a bit uncalled for, I think it's fair to say you were presenting a position that was as equally one-sided.

The arguments were motivated by the claim of my ignorance and for some weird reason I got a bit riled. Agreed though, it is a not a fore-gone conclusion that either side is right. There are good arguments for either side and I hope I supported my side soundly.

While I think most people would agree it's wrong to draw conclusions about and entire population based on a small subgroup of that population, you can't really blame someone for forming an opinion based on their experiences. If Joe has repeatedly had poor experiences with Mexican immigrants leaving large amounts of garbage in the streets of his community, it may not be right to assume that all Mexicans behave the same way but his experiences says they do. Again, it may not be right, but it's hardly "dehumanizing".

I'm sorry Kraj, but I'm a little less flexible on this as you. For me its just a bit too patronising to say that people who scape-goat just 'don't get out enough'. If an individual wants to be regarded as intelligent then one needs to display some common sense. The inferior culture argument is one that I abhor. I know the Aztec link was a bit extreme but it was an attempt to place the inferior culture argument into some kind of context. MAybe I'm a little touchy on the subject - I'll elaborate further on.

You know darn well this is a false argument. Pointing out one group is behaving or has behaved badly is not an excuse for another group to behave badly.

This was emotive I know and was in direct retaliation for the 'inferior culture' argument. However my point was this, anti-social behaviour is not exclusive to a culture. Wielding this argument to debase a culture is fallacious. It is critical that these people retain their dignity whilst we sort the problem out.

Quite possibly. However, as it stands the Constitution only protects citizens of this country. People residing in the United States illegally have no right to free speech. Maybe they should, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

Should they actually be gagged whilst picking our 'maters? Sorry for the Rich-like one-liner but I couldn't resist

Does a person who speeds down the same road past the same cop every day have the right to complain when he gets pulled over? No.

Sorry Kraj, this doesn't hold water. The cop didn't buy the car for the driver. The US institution has been positively encouraging the illegality of these immigrants. Why? because they hold complete dominion on them. You've actually exposed the ace-card that the institution can play once these illegals get too bothersome. You're right they are illegal, gagged and vulnerable. The cop ignores the driver, the institution does no such thing. They tell the driver to get in the car and hit the gas, blindfolded.

You can't hold a group of people like this in limbo, indefinitely. It was illegal for a black man to use the same bathroom as a white man a few decades agoi. The illegals aren't slaves but can't you see the similarities? A group of people being given a subsistant living, with no rights and being branded as an inferior culture. Am I raving? Am I imagining it? Maybe I should go see a shrink. However I just have a gut feeling about this.

 

[FoFa]

Actually American big business does reap benefits from illegal immigration in many ways. 80% of new homes in America are built by 20 builders; these builders hire subcontractors which in turn hire illegal aliens. The competition at that level is so intense that the subs have to use illegal immigrants.

I never said big business doesn't reap any benefit, they typically don't hire illegals because of laws, and audits. Our large corp. has a lawn service, I would bet not all are legal either, however when push comes to shove, the corp is contracting with a firm that has the illegals. Just as you said, the big builders are not hiring the illegals themself, but contracting with subs (smaller businesses) that handle their own employment. Now I am not going to say "turning a blind eye" is proper, but I also don't think the large corp. who are contracting should monitor the smaller businesses employment practices either. Our contracts state they are not to use illegal immagrants, but we really don't know.

 

[FoFa]

But Fofa, I wasn't personalizing it. That was my point. The boss ignores the personal and legal issues in this case. Layoffs occur because of financial reasons not personal ones. Illegals are employed instead of legals for the exact same reason, however this is an illegal act in itself. The boss doesn't care about the welfare or the status of his employees. He cares solely about the profit.

OK, see here is where I get confused, you say ignores the personal issues, dosn't care about the welfare or status of emlpoyees, just profit. But I think you are wrong in a majority of cases. I know some lawn care people, and they , ahem, have , ahem, without their knowledge, ahem, hired illegals in the past. They do care about those that do good work and are not "drifters". Yes they care about profit, but because they have families to feed, and they want to keep their employees, employed, who also have families in a lot of cases. To compete in that business you have to keep your prices low, and do good work. Since it is more about labor (maybe gas shortly ) it becomes important to keep labor prices low. If they have good workers, they can do more lawns with less people, and still give them a decent wage. They are not "slave" labor. At least from the 4 or 5 I have meet/know that seems to be the norm. But I am sure there are as many different also.

 

[dan-cat]

They are not "slave" labor. At least from the 4 or 5 I have meet/know that seems to be the norm. But I am sure there are as many different also.

I'm intrigued by this point. If what you say is true, why are the labor-intensive roles dominated by the illegals? What makes the boss pick them above a US citizen? What makes the employment of an illegal a more profitable option? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm interested in your opinion of a business man's mentality.

 

[FoFa]

I'm intrigued by this point. If what you say is true, why are the labor-intensive roles dominated by the illegals? What makes the boss pick them above a US citizen? What makes the employment of an illegal a more profitable option? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm interested in your opinion of a business man's mentality.

Not being in this business, I would have to give you second hand information. But most of them have legals working for them, who have "a friend" that needs a job. This friend will work for cash, under the table. No questions asked. Less taxes and associated business related expenses since they are not on the books. They can pay them almost the same, but come out ahead. If they are mistreated, most will leave for another job (not a real lack of jobs for them). That is about all I can tell you from my dealings with those in the business. I have not had contact with any for a few years now either, doubt it has changed any.

 

[Rich]

You've already quoted the final clause of the Potsdam declaration. Do I need to quote it again? You tell me how complete and utter destruction of an entire nation can be deemed as not an act of anger and I'll concede the point. The allies had embarked on a course of complete annihilation of the Japanese. Like I said over and over again, the a-bomb attacks were to go ahead regardless of the Potsdam declaration - regardless of any diplomatic process. Stimson said this himself. I know you don't believe him but there it is. I can't make you believe him. What I will do is add the War Secretary to the list of people who you think opinions are worthless.

.

Leave Stimson aside for the minute, do you not see that all the others you listed had their own agendas, do you not see that they all wanted to claim their own glory by leading their men into battle, do you not see that countless thousands of fine decent American lives were spared simply by dropping two bombs, do you think the navy would have just sat offshore and waited for the Japanese to surrender, whilst they were subjected to the entire Japanese airforce engaging in Kamikaze attacks on them?
All of what you have listed is nothing more than conjecture, what is irrefutable is that the war was brought to an immediate end with just two bombs.

 

[dan-cat]

So the only real difference between an illegal and a non-illegal worker is a mutual 'unofficial' understanding between the employer and employee. The quality of work is the same and both cut out the tax man. The relationship seems quite cordial. Don't you think this is going to spread bad feeling amongst the legal workers considering they pay their taxes and the illegals don't and that their boss actually encourages this?

 

[Kraj]

For me its just a bit too patronising to say that people who scape-goat just 'don't get out enough'.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it as scapegoating. Scapegoating would be observing a.) my neighborhood is getting visibly delapidated and b.) there are a lot of Mexians moving into my neighborhood and then concluding that c.) Mexicans are responsible for the delapidation of my neighborhood. That's quite different from observing a large portion of Mexicans in the neighborhood repeatedly throwing garbage everywhere.

Yes, it's quite silly to blame illegal immigrants for all the nation's problems; but it is quite appropriate to partially blame them for the problems they are partially causing.

However my point was this, anti-social behaviour is not exclusive to a culture. Wielding this argument to debase a culture is fallacious. It is critical that these people retain their dignity whilst we sort the problem out.

I certainly agree. Illegal immigrants cause a problem that needs to be dealt with and technically they are even criminals, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve basic human rights.

Should they actually be gagged whilst picking our 'maters? Sorry for the Rich-like one-liner but I couldn't resist

No prob. And the answer is "no". The point is not that illegal immigrants should be prevented from excercising basic human rights, but that they shouldn't refuse to abide by the law and then expect to be protected by it.

The US institution has been positively encouraging the illegality of these immigrants.

This is where my knowledge of the topic fails. If you are correct, it certainly proves a reasonable compromise is needed. It's not exactly entrapment, but it would certainly be unjust to punish people for behavior that was encouraged. However, to the best of my knowledge the law has simply failed to adequately discourage illegal immigration and punish the business that do encourage it. If you have any links to an unbaised dicussion of the topic, I'd be interested in reading them.

You can't hold a group of people like this in limbo, indefinitely.

I just don't see it as these people are being "held" in limbo; they've chosen it. It may be stupidly hard to become a legal immigrant these days, but the process is there. It may be broken, but's that not an excuse to ignore it.

 

[dan-cat]

Leave Stimson aside for the minute, do you not see that all the others you listed had their own agendas, do you not see that they all wanted to claim their own glory by leading their men into battle, do you not see that countless thousands of fine decent American lives were spared simply by dropping two bombs, do you think the navy would have just sat offshore and waited for the Japanese to surrender, whilst they were subjected to the entire Japanese airforce engaging in Kamikaze attacks on them?
All of what you have listed is nothing more than conjecture, what is irrefutable is that the war was brought to an immediate end with just two bombs.

Countless number of American lives were spared by the policy epitomized in the Potsdam declaration.

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed
forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

You can't isolate the atomic bomb usage from the rest of the militiary campaign. You said yourself there was little difference between the firestorm of Tokyo and Hiroshima. The entire military campaign was in line with the policy defined by the term 'utter destruction'. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part and parcel of this policy.

 

[Kraj]

do you not see that countless thousands of fine decent American lives were spared simply by dropping two bombs, ...?

Not that I agree 100% with either side of this issue, but... surely you realize that the 150,000 (give or take 50,000) Japanese civilians who were killed "simply by dropping two bombs" were just as fine and decent as the Americans who were spared?