This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

US Invasion

edited April 2006 in Flamewars
So I listen to lots of talk radio. It keeps my brain busy where I just tend to zone out when I listen to music. Anyway, the only thing I'm hearing about is this immigration issue. Its like as soon as I turn on the radio I get mad for two reasons. The first reason is simply that I'm tired of hearing about it. The second reason is that this has seriously put me off of human beings. The solutions are simple but no one has the balls to do anything and there are some real ignorant people fighting any kind of progress in fixing the situation. I used to be a staunch Bush supporter but seeing him bow to left and the business people at large with this 'guest worker' idea is pissing me off.

I am not aginst immigration or mexicans. I'm not racist or anything like that. Its people breaking the law and laws that are already on the books not being enforced that confuses me. The concept of, "People are breaking the law by the 10's of thousands and its hard to enforce these laws so lets justs make it legal" seems to be a very dangerous slipery slope for the US.

Why not put the National Gaurd on the border? Why not fine the hell out of employers who hire illegals? Why not cut them off from any medical aid except in the event of life threatening injury? Why not deport any illegal we find including the 23% of our prison populatioin who are illegal? Will it take money to do this? Sure but the 12 or 11 million illegals that are syphoning off of our economy being removed will create more jobs for REAL americans and save tax dollar spending. There is a big picture to look at here.

Simple balls.....

I'm sad......


  • You make the same mistake as millions of other people. Legal and illegal are not the same thing as right and wrong. If millions of people are breaking a law, there is a good chance that it is a bad law. I encourage people to break laws when the laws are unjust, it's called civil disobedience. See Ghandi and MLK Jr. for past examples. For current examples see copyright, patent and drug laws.
  • "Sure but the 12 or 11 million illegals that are syphoning off of our economy being removed will create more jobs for REAL americans and save tax dollar spending."

    There's actually a lot of evidence that this is not the case.

    First, most of the jobs "illegals" take are terrible, low-paying jobs that few Americans are willing to do in the first place. Day labour, field picking: these jobs aren't economical if you follow minimum-wage and labour laws. The options are to either let the industries disappear, hire Americans illegally (below minimum-wage), or continue to hire aliens illegally. Regardless, illegals are not in contention for the vast majority of jobs out there in the US.

    Second, these people do contribute back to the economy. They fill a labour void and purchase goods/services in return.

    Third, how are their influxes any different from the mass-immigration of the turn of the century?

    Fourth, the combined tax burden of all illegal immigrants combined pales before the wastes of Medicare/Medicade or even Social Security. Fixing the small problems tax-wise has a negligible effect on the actual total budget.

    Fifthly and finally, these people pay about the same taxes they'd be paying if they were legal citizens, yet they receive far fewer benefits in return. An under-the-table worker doesn't pay Federal Income Tax, but these jobs fall below the line of ANY tax liability whatsoever: they wouldn't have to pay even if they were citizens. In addition, they pay the same sales taxes that we do.

    Despite paying the same taxes, they are unable to claim the benefits for fear of being caught/deported. It can be seriously argued that illegal immigrants pay more into the system than they get out of it, and are therefore a net benefit.
  • RymRym
    edited April 2006
    I'll clarify by saying that I'm not arguing for open borders. I'm merely noting that the economic justification for closing them is not terribly valid.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • "Legal and illegal are not the same thing as right and wrong. If millions of people are breaking a law, there is a good chance that it is a bad law."

    So it is okay just to break any law you don't like?!?!?! That is not they way it works. If you don't like a law, get it changed. Otherwise you are just lazy.

    "First, most of the jobs "illegals" take are terrible, low-paying jobs that few Americans are willing to do in the first place."

    That is a cop out. Check the studies. Its not true. Americans will fill the gap. If all 11 or 12 million illegals suddenly got deported the economy will not collaps.

    "Third, how are their influxes any different from the mass-immigration of the turn of the century?"

    Its uncontroled, undocumented, unsupervised, and illegal.

    "Fourth, the combined tax burden of all illegal immigrants combined pales before the wastes of Medicare/Medicade or even Social Security. Fixing the small problems tax-wise has a negligible effect on the actual total budget."

    Granded. Off topic but true. What is being or not being done about social security makes my blood boil but that is a whole different topic.

    "Fifthly and finally, these people pay about the same taxes they'd be paying if they were legal citizens, yet they receive far fewer benefits in return."

    Fair point. So why don't they do it legally and get the bennys? Its a no brainer.

    "It can be seriously argued that illegal immigrants pay more into the system than they get out of it, and are therefore a net benefit."

    It can? I'd say it could be argued earnistly but I could hardly take is seriously.
  • "So it is okay just to break any law you don't like?!?!?!"

    Yes. It all comes down to the idea of Jury Nullification. A jury has the power to decide guilt or innocence in a court of law. A jury also has the power (and the right) to vote "not guilty" even if the the law in question was clearly broken, on the grounds that the law should not be enforced in the first place.

    If I break an unpopular law, a law that a substantial majority disagrees with or breaks regularly, then the odds are that a "jury of my peers" will consist of at least one person who disagrees with that law. I will thus likely be found innocent.

    The people themselves have the final say in which laws are enforced and which aren't. Indeed, people have a moral imperative to break unjust laws wherever possible, and to nullify them at all opportunity.

    "That is a cop out. Check the studies."

    If you're going to play that game, provide some backing. Show us a study. The sad fact is that there are few useful studies about this topic at all, due mostly to the difficulty of quantifying the parameters or actually observing the people in question. My anecdotal evidence and yours are both useless.

    "So why don't they do it legally and get the bennys?"

    It's almost impossible to legally emigrate to the United States. The system is archaic arbitrary, and extremely limited.

    "I'd say it could be argued earnistly but I could hardly take is seriously."

    I can. I'd wager (nothing to back this up) that the illegals are more earnest, hard-working, and determined than many legitimate members of the US underclass. They have a lot more to lose, and everything to gain. They've faced hardship and taken extreme risks to achieve what little they have, as opposed to the demographics of certain citizens who rely on social safety nets and have never known true hardship.
  • (Woot! Fun thread!)

    Work is cramping my style here. I'll get back at ya in a bit, Rym.

    Sorry for dropping vague info w/o backup. Here it is.
  • RymRym
    edited April 2006
    Well, that study provides ample fodder. (All quotations that follow are from the linked study, which I haven't fully read due to my still being at work).

    "...unemployment among less-educated adult natives increased by nearly one million"

    "There is some direct evidence that immigration has harmed less-educated natives"

    Even if there is a link, the only competition is for low-level jobs that require no skills or significant training.

    "Some of the occupations most impacted by immigration include maids, construction laborers, dishwashers, janitors, painters, cabbies, grounds keepers, and meat/poultry workers. "

    These are all low level and undesirable jobs for people with low levels of education. They require no skills or qualifications and are prime candidates for automation. If robots displaced these workes instead of illegals, there would be no difference. Furthermore, wages for such jobs would not likely rise regardless of the presense or absense of illegals, due again to their interchangeability and expendable nature. Few of these jobs would provide a living wage regardless of who held them.

    "The workers themselves are not the only thing to consider; nearly half of American children (under 18) are dependent on a less-educated worker, and 71 percent of children of the native-born working poor depend on a worker with a high school degree or less.

    That is a horrifying statistic. If menial work is all that sustains this nation, then we're in for hell as automation of these mindless tasks increases. Immigrants aren't the problem: the lack of education and high-level jobs is. A job that requires no skills is not secure, will not likely pay a a living wage, and will not likely exist in the nearing future.

    Furthermore, legal immigrants will vie for these jobs just as much as illegals will.

    "Less-Educated Natives Tend to Be the Poorest Americans."

    If less-educated natives are poorer than equally-educated illegals, then something is wrong. Why isn't the native working that hard? If a native expressed an interest in doing this work for the same wage as an illegal, what employer would still choose the illegal?

    I'd wager that the natives aren't willing to work at all or as much for the low wages an illegal will accept.

    In sum, the jobs that -are- being lost to immigrants are indeed low-level, unskilled, menial tasks. The fact that illegals win these jobs over regardless says that either:

    1) Americans are unwilling to take on these jobs.
    2) The immigrants are willing to do them for less.

    In the case of the former: case closed. As for the latter, it's simply capitalism. Even minimum wage is not a living wage, and there are many jobs that actually aren't worth a living wage. With a large pool of unskilled workers, there will be no incentive to increase these wages. Legal remedies (raised minimum-wage) will simply drive industry away entirely.

    If the study is to be believed, then a great many Americans are unskilled and uneducated. Even if the pressure of illegal immigration is removed, these jobs are still in contention and thus the wages will never rise. Legal immigrants will take them just as readily as illegal ones. Nothing changes.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited April 2006
    I would like to point out that Japan is in a very similar position. Japan, even with its economy shot to Hell, is still a prosperous nation and must contend with the problem of illegal immigration. Unlike America, however, Japan is also extremely close to not only reaching ZPG (Zero Population Growth), but even Negative Population Growth. Japan will require large numbers of workers to be able to maintain its infrastructure even as a large segment of the current population ages to the point where they can no longer work, and there are insufficient numbers of young Japanese to take their place.

    Before I detail the Japanese solution to this population and worker problem, I'd like to make it known that I don't support certain aspects of their solution. I am a technician, and a lover of technology, so of course I like initiatives to further the limits and boundaries of science and technology. But I am not a fan of certain parts of Japanese culture, which I think need to be removed and eliminated without regrets.

    Japan has a solution to this problem in mind. Rather than relaxing the draconian immigration laws and dealing with the racism and xenophobia which is rampant in Japanese culture, automation of these menial physical tasks is seen as a more palatable course of action. The Japanese people would much rather deal with robots and automatons than with living foreigners (including Korean immigrants who have lived in Japan for the past 100 years or so).

    Robots are better than foreigners; they are clean and efficient, never complain, provide jobs for skilled Japanese technicians and programmers, do not turn to a life of crime because their job does not pay a wage capable of supporting them, and best of all, do not dilute the Japanese race.
    Post edited by Katsu on
  • edited April 2006
    Katsu, are you saying that the Japanese solution to their problem is robots?

    And that you like it?
    Post edited by Ametto on
  • Katsu,you just insulted me.
  • Yes, the Japanese solution is robots.
    I like robotics research, and the expansion of automation. I don't like, however, why they are doing the research, and how they plan to implement it.
    I would feel much better about it all, if reforms in Japanese immigration law and social programs were introduced to reduce or even eliminate racism were implemented alongside the automation initiative.
  • Could a robot draw anime? No and neather can it turn that drawing into 3D.
  • edited April 2006
    Robots are used in completing tasks that are repetitive and do not change. So while your task may seem repetitive to you, it does not fall into the grouping of jobs slated for automation.
    Post edited by Katsu on
  • Yeah you are right, but drawing could be dangerous, I broke my arm doing just that...stupid joke. lol!
  • Granted the existing infrastructure of Japan may not be sustainable with the significant population decrease that I've read is coming over the next 30 years, but is it really necessary that Japan maintain their current status quo? I mean, is a smaller Japan really a bad thing? Do fewer people HAVE to maintain the infrastructure of a larger society?

    I've been thinking a lot about the benefits of a smaller population since I moved to a small urban area recently. It's less crowded and there's less pollution than every other place I've ever lived. Maybe Japan will be a little better off after the oncoming population downsizing. Their subways will be less crowded and there's bound to be other benefits.

    I am not blind to the loss of culture that fewer people would create. The inevitably smaller WonderFestivals would be a sad thing to me. Fewer Japanese hobbyists would mean smaller conventions. I used to live in Tucson, Arizona and that place was a cultural Mecca compared to where I live now in South Dakota. So I understand how fewer people means less things to do and results in fewer opportunities for shared cultural experiences.

    In the overall scheme of things I wonder if a smaller Japanese population would be a bad thing though. I really hope they don't lose their humanity and turn to robots just because they're losing much of their population. In a way America is going through a similar situation as the post babyboom generations try to fill in the infrastructure vacancies left by their parents and grandparents, but that's another subject altogether.

  • Now Esteban, you say Japanese culture is going to go down the drain? am I right? Well then also is Americanism, global culture, and also rebellion. (ganguro-girls have bent seen to much these days)

    japan has a live style pretty much like new york's. There is trains/sub ways, and it's crowded. But that's off the topic, what I'm talking about is the global blending of cultures. which is starting to happen.
  • I'm generally a proponent of automation. In a perfect world, it frees the labour resources of man, both mental and physical, for use in the pursuit of greater things. Imagine the potential if we could harness all of the effort that now goes into merely maintaining our infractructure and cooking our burgers?
  • Too bad our world is far from perfect. All I've seen automation lead to over the last twenty years is large scale unemployment and the creation of millions of mundane boring jobs maintaining the automations.

    This article warns of the dangers of automation but tempers that with the hope humanity will make the right choice for its future. I however don't have the faith that mankind will use all of its new found free time going on humanitarian quests to further knowledge, cure diseases and save the earth. I think we'll just use automation to free up time to do even more of the same soul sucking work and make more money for our corporate masters. A smaller japanese population looking to automation to sustain a lifestyle far beyond what it needs is the epitome of this ridiculous thinking.

  • ej, what you say is true. However, those are short-term problems. Only terrible people with no useful skills or knowledge will have a hard time. Smart people will benefit a great deal from increased machine labor. So will rich evil people, but what can you do? It's just more of that bad medicine I was talking about. In the short-term automation will taste bad. In the long run it will cure the disease, if you're tough enough to swallow it.
  • The main problem at issue is the distribution of scarce resources. Our capitalistic societies do it by exchanging labour for money, which is then exchanged for resources. Communism does so (essentially) the same way, only without the middle step.

    So, what do you do when there simply aren't enough gainful labours worthy of equivalent goods? The only reason our economic systems exist is to dictate how those scare resources are distributed. It breaks down if the sole way of obtaining these goods is no longer viable or useful.

    Automation's failings are purely economic in my eyes. Unions and labourers resist it or hobble it in order to ensure that their jobs will continue to exist. My experiences in corporate America have led me to believe that a great many of the jobs that currently exist are entirely unnecessary to the continuance of our society: they exist solely as an artificial means of distributing money and maintaining the economic social order.

    So what do you do when there are fewer jobs than there are people?

    One option is to distribute some amount of resources to those who cannot find work, but this is unfair to those who can.

    Another is to create useless or meaningless jobs for these people, but this is a waste, as the jobs serve no purpose other than to justify a distribution of resources.

    A third is to subsidize useful work that would otherwise not be undertaken due to a lack of direct profits, such as what was done with the CCC and the CWA during the United States' Great Depression. I'm a proponent of this, but I can't deny that it has drawbacks of its own.

    A fourth is to de-scarcify the contended resources. We have already seen the early effects of this with intellectual property. Imagine if there were a bittorrent for gold or hamburgers or race cars. Of course, this option is not likely to be feasible anytime in the near future for a variety of reasons.

    A fifth is to guarantee a certain, limited set of basic resources to all citizens of a nation: food, shelter, basic medical care, what-have-you, paying for this through the tax structures already in place. Anyone who desires anything beyond this minimum set must somehow obtain more through work. While I'm sure some would be content to suck at society's teat forevermore, I'm equally certain that most people would seek out greater things for themselves.

    Automation isn't the problem. People being afraid to actually look at their available options for fear of change is the problem.
  • And there Rym, I think you have the options laid out there very nicely.
    But I think the problem is, we aren't trying to achieve any of these solutions. I think the fourth solution is the eventual correct one, but we are a few years away from this as our best solution. In the meantime, I believe that projects like the public works might be a good solution.

    But the problem isn't just labor unions, though I can't disagree with you on some aspect of those points. There's also a problem on the other end. We end up moving the manufacturing overseas because they see it as more cost-effective in the short-term.

    We have many problems, and reasons why immigration has become a flash-point for them. It combines the aspects of employment, pay, and corporate philosophies. The current problem is the evil rich people in control, not the smart people. They can buy their own laws, and control the system. I don't really understand what they are thinking.

    One of the things that will hopefully even themselves out over time is the population problem. As people gain a more stable lifestyle, they start putting more effort into their children, or more people opt out of the task of child-rearing. Japan's noticed it, as have many countries in Europe. We have it to some extent in our country. I think that if more people can achieve a level of affluence that makes the idea of putting more effort into less children a better idea.
Sign In or Register to comment.