ahole-ic
Banned
You have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to electrical engineering because you are 180 degrees out of phase in politics.
I can make bald assertions, too, and not provide supporting arguments. Apparently, just telling someone they're wrong is sufficient.
Perhaps you can explain to me how any of the stricter border and immigration policies will result in smaller government, less taxes, and a freer market.
I mean shit, some of you want your government to tell you what language you're allowed to speak, and what language(s) you're allowed to serve your customers in. Because, ya know, pressing 1 for English is just such an inconvenience.
The HACKER
10+ year member
custom chaos
This ^^^ The Gov't is becoming more and more controlling and are slowly taking our rights from us...they are deciding for us. and at the most give us the illusion of free will by "voting" which in all reality in some cases still isnt the decidng factor. We are becoming what they say we fight our "wars" against.
Last edited by a moderator:
ahole-ic
Banned
Logically it was incorrect. It was a direct contradiction. It didn't need proving. It was a radical liberal argument.
You set up an argument and then tried to make rules on how I would argue it because your side of the argument can hold no water. We merely want our laws enforced. Mexico's immigration laws are pretty strict. Why shouldn't ours be? Why should we look the other way while people break our laws? Meanwhile their children become natural citizens who are eligible for government funding. Since their parents report no income since they don't have a SS# and can't pay income taxes, they reap rewards that nobody ever paid for. By disallowing this, taxes will go down. By securing our borders, we decrease the liklihood that a terrorist can come through our porous border and attack us. There is every rational thought behind securing our borders. There is no logic behind keeping them insecure.
Can you point out the direct contradiction? Logic is a specialty of mine.
I'm not totally convinced you know what I'm arguing for. For example, I would argue that the US and Mexico should both drastically relax their immigration laws (same goes for Canada and everywhere else). I do think it is interesting, though, that you want to take your policy directive from Mexico...
I agree that you shouldn't look the other way for people breaking the laws that I agree with. That doesn't include immigration laws (unjust laws deserve to be broken, and often are, until they're reformed). Now is a great opportunity to reform them.
They have no SS# because they're not legal immigrants. Make them legal and they'll start having to pay income tax.
If you don't want people to receive benefits without having paid in, end the welfare state. Either that or you've got millions of naturalized citizens you should be looking to deport as well. If you make less than $30,000 per year, better pack your bags...
How much will it cost to protect your border such that no terrorist can get in? How large will local, state, and federal enforcement agencies need to be to accomplish such a program? How much will taxpayers be on the hook for it? Can your goal ever actually be accomplished, and, if so, would the program that accomplishes it still respect basic liberties?
Keep in mind you already spend $6,000,000,000 on the INS every year (which says nothing of all the other enforcement required). For what?
You want an expensive police state, and when I point out that this is not at all being fiscally conservative or small government, I'm the one who is somehow in "direct contradiction."
ahole-ic
Banned
It was quoted. If you're such a genius, you should have figured that one out already.
I'm not totally convinced that you do either.
Well you are against the United States securing its borders but didn't say a thing about Mexico deporting us upon finding out we are not legal citizens and have overstayed our legal visitation. By stating this, I got you to say something even more looney. You insinuated that we should either dissolve our borders or just relax any security. You didn't provide any reasons for this. I'd like to hear them.
Well it's about time you realized that you are not an authority on anything. What YOU agree with has no relevance to anyone but you.
What about the back taxes? What about all of the people that actually took the time to become legal citizens? What about the fact that they obviously have no regard for our laws?
Ending the welfare state would be great. I made less than that right up until recently, and I still paid taxes and didn't receive a single dime of government money.... so maybe you should brush up on your facts.
It depends on how you go about it. There are many approaches that have yet to be tried. You assuming that everything has been thought of. In fact, it is so politically convenient for our politicians to ignore our border security, that almost nothing has been tried.
For smoke and mirrors.
No. I literally never said this. You asked the question and drew your own conclusion. That fits your personality. Unfortunately for you, you're not nearly as all knowing as you pretend to be.
This. I find it funny how people cringe at the thought of socialism, yet we have a lot of socialist aspects in our society. It aint such a bad thing people.
ahole-ic
Banned
There are those of us who do cringe at these thoughts. We like financial freedom and see how corrupt and dysfunctional our government can be. We do not want them dictating what is "best" for us.
What a cop out!
I was mocking those who claim fiscal conservatism while they argue for more spending and bigger government. Not sure where the contradiction is there.
I sure do: globalization and classical liberalism (aka libertarianism).
The reason I didn't say anything about Mexico is because this is a thread about US immigration reform. Notice that as soon as Mexico was brought up, I mentioned that they, too, should relax their immigration laws.
Yes, I think borders across the globe should be dissolved. Small steps, though. The reasons have to do with basic economic liberty: anti-protectionism and the freedom to participate in the economic market in any region. No preference given on the basis of borders, as this inhibits the idea of universal equality (central to the idea of liberty) as well as restricting economic performance.
The fact that you're asking these questions makes me wonder how much economics you've ever read. This is basic classical liberalism, neoliberalism, or libertarianism.
That may or may not be correct, but let me ask you: from where do you draw your authority?
Back taxes are lost, those who had to wait were screwed. With or without a reform in immigration laws, those are both true statements.
As for the latter point, it's irrelevant to this specific issue. When you say they have no regard for our laws, you mean some of them do not have regard for some of your laws; there is no universal declaration to be made here. Similarly, some naturalized citizens and legal immigrants do not have regard for some of your laws.
This is my point:
nearly half of us households escape fed income tax - Google Search
Well, let's hear them.
I'm not intending to be all knowing (I don't believe in anything omniscient), but I am intending to challenge hypocrites who claim to be fiscally conservative, for small government, and pro-liberty, but fall short on every count on this particular issue.
ahole-ic
Banned
It was not a cop out. It was factual. You were trying to draw a conclusion based on YOUR assumption. You assume we want to spend a ton of money stacking people up on the border when in fact, it can be done in many, more effective ways.
This is why I said you should stick to EE.
People are afraid to mention Mexico for fear or being called racist. Mexico just happens to be the crux of the issue right now. It's where the biggest percentage of our immigrants come from due to our lax border. I already covered what you said in my previous post.
I believe the premise ignores the negative consequences. Each region and nationality has its own culture and thus priorities. That won't change just because the borders are dissolved. The United States' National interest should be the same as it always has been which is to remain free from european socialism and religious persecution and to excersize our own industry and skill to make opportunities for ourselves.
The fact that you believe in this ideology makes me question how much history you've ever read. This is an ideology that has tried and failed every time. Of course you'll come back and lie and spin about this, as a classic liberal, but it doesn't make what you say true.
I have attempted to excersize none, and have not suggested anyone ignore any laws. For this reason it makes your question irrelevant to the discussion.
I disagree. If you refuse to think outside the box, sure. If you instead just enforce the laws on the books by taking away incentive for people to come here illegally, you basically solve the problem with little expense.
It's not irrelevant as they have established the precedent. If they've ignored 1 law, why won't they ignore all of them or at least more?
If you're such an expert in logic as you say, you have to admit as much and accept it.
Not going to read it right now.
You are still assuming that the way they want to go about it is heavy border patrol. The border can be secured much more easily without all the feet on the ground.
On the contrary, I drew my conclusion based on what has largely been proposed. I have yet to hear a proposal that will result in less government spending, smaller government, and more liberty, than my proposition. Apparently there are such ways, and yet you refuse to propose them (you just keep asserting that they exist).
Keep in mind that you called what I posted a "direct contradiction" of itself, rather than an instance of faulty premises.
I am not an EE. I don't know or care to know your profession, so I can't keep braying about how you should stick to whatever it is you do. Stick to the arguments, and ditch the ad hominems.
First, what you say is true of the nations is just as true of different regions of the US. There is almost certainly more of a cultural difference between Manhattan and Phoenix than there is between Tucson and Hermosillo. The best way to govern with such differences is to allow for free interaction between these regions, and a small government representing both areas to uphold broadly agreed ideals.
I think that if you believe in your ideals, you should not be afraid to share them with others beyond the border. Nationalism is a dangerous thing when you think a line determines whether or not someone should be entitled to basic liberties.
Could you give me an example where a free market, capitalist system has failed every time? I'd think the limited extent to which the US has behaved as such is historical testament in support of what I'm proposing.
On the contrary, your every post is an attempt to demonstrate expertise or authority on an issue contra my own. The fact that I recommend laws being relaxed is no more or less a recommendation than yours that the laws be more tightly enforced.
How precisely do you do that, and on what grounds do you prevent them from experiencing the same liberties and economic freedoms that you do?
This is quite ironic. You think you've demonstrated a point of deductive logic here, when in fact you've introduced a concept that points to quite the opposite, called induction. Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further, you've ignored what I said about naturalized citizens. If they've shown they'll ignore one law (maybe even something relatively benign, like speeding or pot possession), why won't they ignore all of them or at least more? Do they then deserve to be denied citizenship on the same grounds?
Of course not. That would've taken 30 seconds.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
To put your comment in perspective, we are talking about controlling the flow of illegal aliens into our job market. You make it sound like socialism, when in fact its simply controlling our border. Your country controls its border, I guess we should consider your govt a socialist one who 'controls who can compete' within its economy too?
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
Its ironic you are 9 times out of 10 liberal in your view, but the 1 time out of 10 you still want to use the 'smaller govt' argument.
Im traditionally for smaller govt. Border control however is one very important responsibility our govt has, large or small. You want to worry about big govt, lets start trimming the fat in our huge beaurocracy. I find it ironic how liberals want to add to the size of the govt with huge social programs like socialized medicine, but when we start talking about putting people on our border to secure it, the cries for smaller govt then start flying.
Since you want to try and use the conservative idea of smaller govt against them, its only fair I use the traditional liberal counter-argument against you. Firing all the cops and firemen would result in smaller govt too, why not do that as well? Again, controlling the border is a function much like the police force, it only makes sense the federal govt handles it (and actually does it). We can afford to spend trillions on bailing out wall street and detroit, even Greece, but when it comes time to guard our borders that's when we need to halt our spending?
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
Exactly, all the legal residents who speak the country's national language are suppose to make all the concessions. We should have to request an english speaking mcdonalds employee, we should have to accept certain job fields are no longer realistically available, and we should pay more taxes to cover all the illegals who aren't paying taxes. But if we pass a law that means legal immigrants have to carry around a green card or other proof of residency, people scream racism and damaged daily freedoms.
Us having to press 1 for english is a sign of how wrong this whole thing is. Mexicans are immigrating here illegally in such huge numbers that they are able to create their own society complete with its own language. These people are not people wishing to merge into our society, they are wanting to change ours, or replace it with their own. They come here without our permission, and offer only to adapt to our society so far as it benefits them. The do-gooders then say its society's responsibility to adapt to what the Mexican's chose not to (such as using our language). You aren't going to convince me that's right morally, ethically, financially or socially.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
- Start date
- Participants
- Who Replied
- Replies
- 252
- Views
- 4,459
- Last reply date
- Last reply from
- AlterEgo99
