Log in

View Full Version : Fun with Factoids: Immigration!



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Deogol
01-14-2007, 12:31 AM
^^ And did you read CO's post above about that exact same company? Very interestink....:P

Not at the time I made the post. That little fucker went and posted that so I didn't actually have to go hit google after all. What a waste of my time. :)

Melonie
01-14-2007, 06:48 AM
The reason that "ordinary Americans" do not want to do those jobs right now is because of how low the wages are! And what, may I ask, is causing those wages to be so low???

Actually, where products or 'portable' services are concerned, the wages are so low because the labor costs associated with making that product overseas or performing that 'portable' service overseas are even lower ! It's impossible for the US gov't to mandate that a higher wage be paid by US companies than by their worldwide competition without doing economic harm to that US company's competitiveness (well, short of enacting tariffs and quotas on imported products as well as locking down international communications which allow 'portable' services to be performed overseas, anyhow).

Arguably, the reason that many 'poor' Americans are not willing to work for such low wages is that their 'minimum acceptable American standard of living' won't be improved if they work ! In other words, the amount of money and cash equivalent value of social welfare benefits they are eligible to receive if 'chronically unemployed' results in exactly the same standard of living as if they chose to work at the low paying job but lost eligibility for some of those social welfare benefits as a result !

Ironically, as more and more courts and politicians decide that illegal aliens should be equally eligible for social welfare benefits, those illegal aliens will continue to be willing to work at those low paying jobs where US citizens and legal aliens will not. The reason of course is that the illegal aliens are being paid 'off the books' or under some other person's SS#/TIN such that the earnings from their job will not be applied towards reducing their eligibility for those social welfare benefits, as would be the case for US citizens or legal aliens who are being paid under their own SS#/TIN !

Actually, that last point is arguably a time bomb waiting to explode if and when politicians who are calling for amnesty to be granted to illegal aliens are successful. At that time, illegal aliens would no longer escape paying taxes and would no longer escape having their actual earnings applied to their eligibility for social welfare benefits. The 64 billion dollar question then becomes whether or not those amnestied and now legal aliens would still be willing to work at low paying jobs, versus a good percentage deciding to simply sit at home and collect social welfare benefits like many other 'poor' Americans, and earn extra money 'off the books' by a different method ! If that turns out to be the case, then the end result will simply be that there are more registered voters receiving social welfare benefits, that middle class taxpayers and businesses will have an even higher tax burden to bear, and that American businesses will be even less competitive on a global economy basis !

~

virgoamm
01-14-2007, 12:21 PM
You are absolutely correct, Melonie. It's just been getting on my nerves as of late to hear people throw around the phrase, "well, they do jobs that noone else will do!"-which is absolute crap. Like I said in my post, plenty of "ordinary Americans" work in fast food restaurants, gas stations and a plethora of other low-paying jobs. Like someone else said, they are not just picking lettuce anymore and are making what were once higher paying jobs into lower paying jobs. Whenever someone is taking jobs away from people who live here legally and are actually citizens of this country on top of driving down wages, well, that just makes me livid.

virgoamm
01-14-2007, 12:27 PM
I wasn't referring to white collar jobs. What I was talking about was blue-collar jobs that cannot possibly be outsourced. And most of the jobs that illegals do can't be outsourced. While outsourcing definitely pisses me off to no end, that's the way the world is going and is what the U.S. has to do to be competitive globally, unfortunately. :(




^^

Why then are jobs outsourced? Would YOU (say you were a CEO of a software company) pay a computer engineer $80,000 in the US OR pay $20,000 to a person in India (For purposes of this argument let's assume that $20K in Indian buys a similar lifestyle to that of a person making $80K in U.S.)? As a CEO, its an easy choice for you to make. The money the company saves is tremendous but the again, the money saved usually goes back into the pockets of the CEO somehow :)

If you as the CEO decided to pay $80K to the American, then your company would lose profits, the company wouldn't be as profitable as a company who outsources (i.e., not employing Americans)

Trust me, if you are worried about being "helping" people, don't buy foreign goods. The shoes you wear, the clothes you wear, the cellphone you use, and maybe the car you drive, were most likely imported from countries who use child labour. Do you know how much things would costs if things were actually made in the U.S.?! Why do you think American car companies are doing so poorly compared to Japanese cars? Unions (among other things). Ford employees, I think, were on strike complaining about making $35/hr;they wanted more money. I don't think there are unions in Japan. The Japanese workers just did their jobs, and their company sold more cars in Japan. I read a good article explaining this (no, not a left-wing or right-wing website, I'll try to find it and post the link here)


(I didn't research half the stuff I said above, feel free to bash me in!)

Deogol
01-14-2007, 05:39 PM
I wasn't referring to white collar jobs. What I was talking about was blue-collar jobs that cannot possibly be outsourced. And most of the jobs that illegals do can't be outsourced. While outsourcing definitely pisses me off to no end, that's the way the world is going and is what the U.S. has to do to be competitive globally, unfortunately. :(

In a world awash with billions of poor ruled by monarchies, dictatorships, war lords, and corrupt democracies - you know what that means don't you?

virgoamm
01-15-2007, 02:35 AM
^^What???

Deogol
01-15-2007, 07:51 AM
It means we must become like them to compete... and looking around - we seem to be well on our way to doing so.

lunchbox
01-15-2007, 08:22 AM
I could be totally wrong but I think she was trying to get across that she realizes emigrating to a new country legally can be a pain in the ass but that doesn't change the fact that the laws should be followed.

I just came up with a joke, tell me what you think:

What do you call a recreational cocaine user who cheats on their taxes?

A criminal!

What do you call a criminal who complains about someone else breaking the law?

An American!

Sirona
01-15-2007, 09:56 AM
I just came up with a joke, tell me what you think:

What do you call a recreational cocaine user who cheats on their taxes?

A criminal!

What do you call a criminal who complains about someone else breaking the law?

An American!

WTF are you talking about?

lunchbox
01-15-2007, 10:12 AM
WTF are you talking about?
When is it OK to be a criminal?

Sirona
01-15-2007, 11:12 AM
When is it OK to be a criminal?

Isn't that a totally different thread? C'mon pal, stick to the subject at hand.

lunchbox
01-15-2007, 12:49 PM
Isn't that a totally different thread? C'mon pal, stick to the subject at hand.
Just to be clear, Yek's dissertation on Australian immigration policy is OK in a thread about changes to the USA's immigration policy and immigrant integration, but I can't assert that the American sense of entitlement is hypocritical?

That's two dissmissive unsubstantial posts in a row for this thread, are you going to make it three?

Sirona
01-15-2007, 02:21 PM
Just to be clear, Yek's dissertation on Australian immigration policy is OK in a thread about changes to the USA's immigration policy and immigrant integration, but I can't assert that the American sense of entitlement is hypocritical?

That's two dissmissive unsubstantial posts in a row for this thread, are you going to make it three?

Dismissive and unsubstantiated? Unless you're refering to yourself I once again don't know wtf you're talking about.

Yek was trying to get across that she has empathy towards people legally emigrating to the US and how it can be a pain in the ass because she herself has had first hand experience emigrating to a country not her own. That's perfectly in place here and has relevance to the topic.


Here's a little refresher since you seem to have forgotten.
In response to Yek's post, #24

Originally Posted by lunchbox http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/images/themes/rising/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=939925#post939925)
I'm really that thick, so please tell me monosyllabically what your story about Australia has to do with the situation here in the USA?


Originally Posted by Sirona http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/images/themes/rising/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=940144#post940144)
I could be totally wrong but I think she was trying to get across that she realizes emigrating to a new country legally can be a pain in the ass but that doesn't change the fact that the laws should be followed.

[I]Originally Posted by lunchbox http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/images/themes/rising/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=943256#post943256)
[I]I just came up with a joke, tell me what you think:
What do you call a recreational cocaine user who cheats on their taxes?
A criminal!

What do you call a criminal who complains about someone else breaking the law?
An American!

Dismissive and unsubstantiated? Only if you're refering to yourself maybe.

lunchbox
01-15-2007, 03:03 PM
Dismissive and unsubstantiated? Unless you're refering to yourself I once again don't know wtf you're talking about.
If you honestly don't know what I'm saying, then how do you write such a directed response?

Yek was trying to get across that she has empathy towards people legally emigrating to the US and how it can be a pain in the ass because she herself has had first hand experience emigrating to a country not her own. That's perfectly in place here and has relevance to the topic.
Shouldn't we then be empathizing with the ones who aren't here legally as well?

Sirona
01-15-2007, 03:19 PM
If you honestly don't know what I'm saying, then how do you write such a directed response?

Welcome to recognizing sarcasm 101. :P


Shouldn't we then be empathizing with the ones who aren't here legally as well?


Empathizing and recognizing that the immigration process can be difficult means I should empathize with the slackers who chose to sneak in rather than enter the country through the proper legal channels?

Please explain. I'm dying to understand your train of thought here...

Yekhefah
01-15-2007, 03:25 PM
I think lunchbox wins the all-time prize in the Deliberately Obtuse category.

lunchbox
01-15-2007, 03:42 PM
Welcome to recognizing sarcasm 101. :P
That isn't sarcasm.

Empathizing and recognizing that the immigration process can be difficult means I should empathize with the slackers who chose to sneak in rather than enter the country through the proper legal channels?

Please explain. I'm dying to understand your train of thought here...
As a nation we break our own laws all the time as a matter of convenience, recreation, and personal gain; with little or no fear of consequence.

lunchbox
01-15-2007, 03:43 PM
I think lunchbox wins the all-time prize in the Deliberately Obtuse category.
If you don't have fun, why bother?

Sirona
01-15-2007, 04:25 PM
That isn't sarcasm.

As a nation we break our own laws all the time as a matter of convenience, recreation, and personal gain; with little or no fear of consequence.

And that relates to illegals how? Oh. That's right. It doesn't.

Make an actual point and maybe we can have an educated conversation. Until then I think i'll go talk to my cat.

lunchbox
01-16-2007, 08:04 AM
And that relates to illegals how? Oh. That's right. It doesn't.

Make an actual point and maybe we can have an educated conversation. Until then I think i'll go talk to my cat.
Simply put if we don't follow our own laws, why should anyone else?

Sirona
01-16-2007, 08:21 AM
Simply put if we don't follow our own laws, why should anyone else?

We aren't discussing all laws, we're discussing IMMIGRATION LAW.

And what kind of poor excuse for an argument is that anyways?
Well gee ma, he jumped off the bridge so I did too!
What are you? A three year old? Sheesh.

lunchbox
01-16-2007, 11:04 AM
We aren't discussing all laws, we're discussing IMMIGRATION LAW.

Those laws don't exists in a vacuum. There is nothing irrelevant about relating general and specific concepts, that's called reasoning.

1) If we empathize with those following the law because we too have followed the law. Should we not empathize with those who break the law because we too have broken the law? I don't see any reason this can't be applied to any law, after all, justice is blind.

NOTE: I'm not implying that because you smoked a joint you should feel empathy towards someone guilty of a capital criminal. Under our laws, a first offence border violation is just a misdemeanor.

2) You should not tell someone else to follow the law, if you do not. Their are precedents that exist in our own laws and system of government, that support this. Particularly some punishments include, forfeiture of your right to participate in our system of government.

Even if you just don't get caught, you certainly have no moral ground to stand on and pass judgement on someone else.


And what kind of poor excuse for an argument is that anyways?
Well gee ma, he jumped off the bridge so I did too!
What are you? A three year old? Sheesh.
I don't make excuses. However, don't feign incomprehension of an argument till it is phrased in a manner that a three year old could understand, then deride the reduced content, and use that as a means to insult someone. It's classless.

Sirona
01-16-2007, 11:11 AM
Those laws don't exists in a vacuum. There is nothing irrelevant about relating general and specific concepts, that's called reasoning.

1) If we empathize with those following the law because we too have followed the law. Should we not empathize with those who break the law because we too have broken the law? I don't see any reason this can't be applied to any law, after all, justice is blind.

NOTE: I'm not implying that because you smoked a joint you should feel empathy towards someone guilty of a capital criminal. Under our laws, a first offence border violation is just a misdemeanor.

2) You should not tell someone else to follow the law, if you do not. Their are precedents that exist in our own laws and system of government, that support this. Particularly some punishments include, forfeiture of your right to participate in our system of government.

Even if you just don't get caught, you certainly have no moral ground to stand on and pass judgement on someone else.


I don't make excuses. However, don't feign incomprehension of an argument till it is phrased in a manner that a three year old could understand, then deride the reduced content, and use that as a means to insult someone. It's classless.

So it's ok for people to illegally enter the country and sap resources meant for citizens etc because people in the country who are legally here smoke pot or jay walk.

That's some interesting rationalization right there.

smartcookie
01-16-2007, 12:15 PM
Look at the recent scandal at the Swift meatpacking plants. In 1980, most meatpacking was done in urban areas and the average wage was $19/hour. These companies have gone to rural areas now and dropped the wage to $9/hour. Please note the different in 1980 dollars versus 2006/7 dollars. How is this possible? By importing primarily illegal Latin American workers, naturally, which creates an artificially depressed market for low-skill jobs.

See, the thing is, CO, I'm not a so called "libertarian". Both you and Melonie purport to be, but I see some inconsistencies that need clearing up. You both claim to abhor social welfare, which, according to Melonie, began during the LBJ administration, after which our economy went to hell in a handbasket. Actually, I'd push back the history of social welfare a bit furtherto FDR's administration at the federal level, and further back at the state level, to La Follette of Wisconsin at the turn of the century, but anyway, in your ideal model of U.S. government, it's every man and woman for his or herself. The free market will provide the answer to everything, and private charity will mind the poor and disabled. Those with no claim or title to property are disenfranchised, and since the individual's interests are paramount, there is no importance placed on the idea of a society or a social contract. The only place a government has is to collect taxes to raise an army to keep outsiders out, and keep criminals locked up (but I guess we'd be paying our defense personnel more cause we'd scrap the GI Bill and such social welfare, right?)

My question to you is this: if there's no social contract, if there's no sense of a greater good and it really should be a dog eat dog world based on individual interests - doesn't that sort of argue for, not against, the case of the illegal immigrant? He provides cheap labor; advancing himself and his family are his only concerns. I really don't see how it's possible to howl in protest at the "artificial price floor" of minimum wage, and then argue for protectionist measures for workers that create yet another artificial price floor.

So I'll ask the question again, and maybe you'd care to answer it this time, Melonie: Are you saying that American workers should accept lower wages with no benefits?

smartcookie
01-16-2007, 12:21 PM
You should not tell someone else to follow the law, if you do not.

But so many here do love to cling to their double standards. Remember the person who said that gays were raising healthcare costs because of their AIDS in PP about two years ago? The funny thing was that she's an admitted cigarette smoker. Who was that again?

Sirona
01-16-2007, 12:38 PM
But so many here do love to cling to their double standards. Remember the person who said that gays were raising healthcare costs because of their AIDS in PP about two years ago? The funny thing was that she's an admitted cigarette smoker. Who was that again?

The world is FULL of hypocrits and double standards. It doesn't make it all right. It doesn't make it ok. If everyone just tosses up thier hands and says, "Aw fuck it, I mean I don't want to be hypocritical" then what?

virgoamm
01-16-2007, 12:57 PM
Smartcookie, I don't think that anyone with any sense of social consciousness whatsoever "abhors" social welfare if it is used in the way in which it was originally intended. What many of us have issues with are those that abuse the system rather than use it as a stepping stone to get yourself out of the circumstances that led you to accept social welfare to begin with. Many people on public assistance are in a sense institutionalized and use it as their primary source of income rather than hold down an honest job and work. Melonie and CO, am I correct in my observations here?

Melonie
01-16-2007, 04:30 PM
^^^ social welfare programs used as temporary assistance in times of crisis is something that I heartily support. Social welfare programs being used as a 'career' is precisely what pisses me off. In my own home state of NY, there are now three generations worth of people who have learned to 'work the system', deliberately limiting their reported earnings at levels that don't interfere with eligibility for medicaid / subsidized housing / subsidized utilities / food stamps etc. Many will quit their low paying job rather than accept a raise/promotion that would put their earnings above the benefit eligibility threshold, which makes perfect sense from their standpoint I suppose - i.e. having to pay full shot for their rent / utilities / medical would cost them much more than the increase in their paycheck from just under the eligibility threshold to just over the eligibility threshold could pay for !

Melonie
01-16-2007, 04:55 PM
So I'll ask the question again, and maybe you'd care to answer it this time, Melonie: Are you saying that American workers should accept lower wages with no benefits?

In a vacuum, no. In a scenario where those higher wages are forcefully confiscated from other hard working people who have invested time and effort in their own skills which allows them to earn more, then yes. The basic issue of course is the 'minimum acceptable American standard of living' premise, where people whose skill level / work ethic / etc. limits them to providing a service that is not worth a sufficient amount of added value to finance that 'minimum acceptable American standard of living' for themselves must achieve it by reducing the standard of living of their more skilled higher work ethic neighbors. Unfortunately, in order to create a vacuum, the US gov't would have to cut off all imports, cut off all outsourcing of 'portable' services, and re-establish a self-contained US economy which consisted of both production and consumption (which we haven't had since the early 70's). Absent such a self-contained economy, unskilled labor rates are set at the margin by the labor costs of the least expensive imported product / service.


But so many here do love to cling to their double standards. Remember the person who said that gays were raising healthcare costs because of their AIDS in PP about two years ago? The funny thing was that she's an admitted cigarette smoker. Who was that again?

be grateful for the smokers ... they are the only ones keeping the Social Security and Medicare system afloat (by paying the same taxes but dying before they are eligible to collect benefits).

However, there are those that argue the case for illegal alien amnesty thus bringing their paychecks above the table in order to collect SSI and medicare taxes, which extract the same percentage from low income paychecks as from middle class paychecks. Unfortunately, the cost of the earned income tax credit, the child care tax credit, the typical cornucopia of social welfare benefits etc vastly exceeds the amount collected for SSI and medicare ! Thus amnesty / legalization would raise the current standard of living of many unskilled illegal aliens (which is now representative of the true value of their skills / services on a global basis) to a level of the 'minimum acceptable US standard of living' - which must then be paid for by extracting subsidy money from their higher skilled higher earning neighbors.

~

smartcookie
01-16-2007, 08:14 PM
In a vacuum, no. In a scenario where those higher wages are forcefully confiscated from other hard working people who have invested time and effort in their own skills which allows them to earn more, then yes. The basic issue of course is the 'minimum acceptable American standard of living' premise, where people whose skill level / work ethic / etc. limits them to providing a service that is not worth a sufficient amount of added value to finance that 'minimum acceptable American standard of living' for themselves must achieve it by reducing the standard of living of their more skilled higher work ethic neighbors. Unfortunately, in order to create a vacuum, the US gov't would have to cut off all imports, cut off all outsourcing of 'portable' services, and re-establish a self-contained US economy which consisted of both production and consumption (which we haven't had since the early 70's). Absent such a self-contained economy, unskilled labor rates are set at the margin by the labor costs of the least expensive imported product / service.



be grateful for the smokers ... they are the only ones keeping the Social Security and Medicare system afloat (by paying the same taxes but dying before they are eligible to collect benefits).

Melonie:

I follow the other parts that you've written, but I can't make heads or tails of the above. The excessive use of jargon and run-on sentences is a very a clever way of dodging a clear statement of your position. Brava. I'm anticipating I'll be told that I'm far too obtuse to understand your advanced understanding of economics. Am I close, or will you surprise me?

While I hate to be a blowhard, I have to disagree with your assertion about smokers. My mother is dying of emphysema. It's a long, slow, painful, and costly goodbye. Thank God it's being paid for by TRICARE, right?

datchapin
01-16-2007, 09:47 PM
Were those Irish, Italian, and Chinese immigrants undercutting wages, committing multiple violent crimes, insisting upon "reclaiming" the country as a part of their country of origin, insisting that everyone else learn to speak Irish/Italian/Mandarin/Cantonese to accomodate them, sending all their earnings home and thereby crippling our economy here, and living almost exclusively off taxpayer-funded handouts?

It would be interesting to research that.

So I guess that citizens of this country don't commit violent crimes. I guess it's not citizen's that employ these people you say are undercutting wages. I guess it's only fair they ask U.S. citizen's to accomodate them when they are constantly force to accomodate. If you're so worried about the money leaving the country, why don't you ask your government to stop giving national aid to other countries. Last I checked they were handing billions of dollars to other contries. Maybe a better idea would be to do your own research.

Yekhefah
01-16-2007, 10:00 PM
Actually, I DON'T think it's fair to ask American citizens to sacrifice our own culture, our own language, and our own country to accomodate those who have absolutely no right to be here. Yes, Americans commit crimes, including the employment of illegals, and those crimes should be punished as well. I don't get why this particular bloc of criminals has so many defenders claiming that their crimes should go unnoticed because other people commit other crimes too. It's really a stupid argument.

As for foreign aid, that's another issue entirely but I agree we should cut back on it.

Mr Hyde
01-16-2007, 10:05 PM
wow...Yek...I am loving you in this thread

datchapin
01-16-2007, 10:08 PM
What get's me is about this thread is this. Nobody know's who the illegal immigrants are and aren't. It's funny everyone assumes that those that don't speak the language are the one's that aren't here legally. You see them walking down the street and assume they don't have their paperwork, guess what though, a ton of those people do have their paperwork. To the girl that was talking about their Austrailian metaphor's guess what, even if you go through everything you have to go through you can still end up being an illegal immigrant in Australia. All that has to happen is a missed letter in the mail a missed meeting and you loose everything you've worked for. You have to go through a probationary period as a resident before you can apply for citizenship the whole time you're going through all this your status is fragile. Maybe you won't be so close minded about your argument when this happens to you. When all you're hard work is wasted away because somebody got your address wrong or there was a typo on your documents.

Maybe you should look at all the requirements here and realize that to be a resident and have a legal status it's not a requirement to speak English and that many of those with papers are here temporarily. Those are the ones that are sending money back home, in many cases it's so they can move back to their country and live their lifes. If they're only here temporarily then why should they assymilate to a way of life which they don't plan to have for long?

datchapin
01-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Actually, I DON'T think it's fair to ask American citizens to sacrifice our own culture, our own language, and our own country to accomodate those who have absolutely no right to be here. Yes, Americans commit crimes, including the employment of illegals, and those crimes should be punished as well. I don't get why this particular bloc of criminals has so many defenders claiming that their crimes should go unnoticed because other people commit other crimes too. It's really a stupid argument.

As for foreign aid, that's another issue entirely but I agree we should cut back on it.

Okay, you call them criminals. So answer this. What law specifically did they break?

American citizens? It's funny how you can take the identity of 2 continents and make it your own. Considering the country you claim to be so inherently your own claimed the cultures and languages of others.

Yekhefah
01-16-2007, 10:37 PM
I think anyone with any sense can recognize that the culture of the USA is unique. Yes, it has been influenced over the centuries, but it's ours now. As for your question, "What law specifically did they break" - are you fucking serious? They broke the law that prohibits them from entering the country without proper documentation! :banghead:

Of course, many become involved in gangs, labor law violations, commit rapes and murders, drive without insurance (my personal favorite, as that one costs me a fortune), etc. But the one that ALL illegal immigrants have broken is the code that the INS and Border Patrol are there to enforce!

lunchbox
01-16-2007, 10:54 PM
wow...Yek...I am loving you in this thread
Yeah, her stern defense of America is really touching.

I want nothing more than to be an Australian citizen
It just brings tears to my eyes...

Yekhefah
01-16-2007, 11:00 PM
Ever think WHY I want to be an Australian? Maybe it's because they're actually taking care of their own, and defending their own culture. Australia is what this country was supposed to be, but we lost our way.

I'm angry with this country because there are too many of the lunchboxes and datchapins, and not enough people who actually care about it. It's not that I don't care about this country; it's that I DO, and it pains me to watch us commit cultural and socioeconomic suicide.

Paris
01-16-2007, 11:16 PM
It most certainly isn't "one or the other." They're sending all their money home instead of living on it, and instead expecting taxpayers to support them. Political correctness is very nice, but I live in the reality of Los Angeles. And the reality here is that I pay over a third of my paltry income in taxes so that criminals can have unlimited free housing, free healthcare, free classes, free child support, free food, and a government that kisses their ass at the expense of enforcing the law. There is nothing you can say that will make that acceptable.

That's not all you are paying. What about sales tax, property tax, gas tax, and other more subtle taxes like the tags for your car, taxes on your phone and utility bills, the social security taxes your employers have to pay on top of what you have to pay.

Americans pay closer to 65-70% of their gross income towards taxes, you just don't see it as it isn't presented in "bill" form like income taxes are. It is passed on to you in hidden expenses and added in to your total bill for cable tv and cell phone service etc.etc.

Are you more pissed now? I'm certainly not happy. But the other hidden taxes are at least voluntary. If I don't want to pay for vehicle tags, I will just use public transportation. Things like that. Income tax cannot be avoided, though, unless you just don't earn money.

Yekhefah
01-16-2007, 11:24 PM
Yes, very true. Good point.

The "hidden tax" that pisses me off the most is the fact that I pay $200 a month for VERY basic auto insurance (including collision with a $1000 deductible, as I haven't paid off the car yet) because of all the illegals around SoCal who can't be bothered to insure their own vehicles, and who tend to drive like they're in Mexico City or the bumper car arena. When I lived in Memphis, I paid $1000 a YEAR for better coverage on the exact same vehicle. I've already been hit by an uninsured illegal alien; fortunately the damage wasn't major, but it was still a significant loss to the value of my car and it could've been a lot worse. This absolutely infuriates me.

miabella
01-16-2007, 11:27 PM
australians are sure not taking care of the actual australians (the aborigines). white australia is hardly actual australia, if you want to get technical about it. but a discussion of how australia and new zealand for that matter deal with their true natives might well be beyond the scope of a discussion about presumed land theft.

virgoamm
01-17-2007, 12:03 AM
First of all, it was never said anywhere in this discussion that simply because someone doesn't speak English that they are not here legally. So out of everything we had to say, that's what gets to you? I have no idea what you were reading, because it certainly was not this thread, as that was never even mentioned. Not once.

And you're accusing Yek of being closed-minded? May I ask about what exactly? It was explicitly clear the parallels she was attempting to draw from what she said about emigrating to another country and how she has empathy towards people legally emigrating to the US and how it can be a pain in the ass because she herself has had first hand experience trying to emigrate to another country.

Lastly, we were not discussing people who are in the U.S. temporarily and legally. We were talking about those who are here illegally, plain and simple. And once again, it was never even brought up by anyone that someone here on a temporary work permit should try to assimilate into American culture and not send money back home. Unless I'm incredibly confused and have been hit upside the head with a baseball bat causing some sort of brain damage, I was under the impresssion that once again, we were talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.




What get's me is about this thread is this. Nobody know's who the illegal immigrants are and aren't. It's funny everyone assumes that those that don't speak the language are the one's that aren't here legally. You see them walking down the street and assume they don't have their paperwork, guess what though, a ton of those people do have their paperwork. To the girl that was talking about their Austrailian metaphor's guess what, even if you go through everything you have to go through you can still end up being an illegal immigrant in Australia. All that has to happen is a missed letter in the mail a missed meeting and you loose everything you've worked for. You have to go through a probationary period as a resident before you can apply for citizenship the whole time you're going through all this your status is fragile. Maybe you won't be so close minded about your argument when this happens to you. When all you're hard work is wasted away because somebody got your address wrong or there was a typo on your documents.

Maybe you should look at all the requirements here and realize that to be a resident and have a legal status it's not a requirement to speak English and that many of those with papers are here temporarily. Those are the ones that are sending money back home, in many cases it's so they can move back to their country and live their lifes. If they're only here temporarily then why should they assymilate to a way of life which they don't plan to have for long?

lunchbox
01-17-2007, 12:07 AM
Ever think WHY I want to be an Australian? Maybe it's because they're actually taking care of their own, and defending their own culture. Australia is what this country was supposed to be, but we lost our way.
Mia said it before I could. Australia has an excellent history of pinching pennies. They saved bullets by herding Aborigines of cliffs. Do you have any idea how many infected blankets the US could have saved had they adopted similar strategies?

I'm angry with this country because there are too many of the lunchboxes and datchapins, and not enough people who actually care about it. It's not that I don't care about this country; it's that I DO, and it pains me to watch us commit cultural and socioeconomic suicide.
"Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." - Yoda

You're wrong, I do care. I don't come from a WASPy background, and it's probably why I have a different perspective on these issues. You know what my background taught me, do not to sit idly by and watch someone scapegoat their problems on someone else.

PhaedrusZ
01-17-2007, 04:25 AM
...Americans pay closer to 65-70% of their gross income towards taxes, you just don't see it as it isn't presented in "bill" form like income taxes are. It is passed on to you in hidden expenses and added in to your total bill for cable tv and cell phone service etc.etc....

...Income tax cannot be avoided, though, unless you just don't earn money.Returning to the exchange between Smartcookie and Sirona at the beginning of this thread, I'm perfectly willing to have completely open borders here in the U.S.

I think it would be a good idea to go back to the immigration policy prior to 1891 in return for a few changes in policy. In 1891, there was no 16th amendment yet extant, and no income taxes or sales taxes in any of the states.

I'm perfectly willing to have an open borders policy here in return for the permanent abolition of all federal and state income taxes. State sales taxes would also have to be abolished, while permanently prohibiting the imposition of a national sales tax. This also provides a solution for those who brought up breaking tax laws. With all taxation itself outlawed, no one will then have to be concerned about breaking tax laws anymore.

So completely open borders in return for the permanent eradication of taxation.

Such a deal!}:D

Melonie
01-17-2007, 04:40 AM
I follow the other parts that you've written, but I can't make heads or tails of the above. The excessive use of jargon and run-on sentences is a very a clever way of dodging a clear statement of your position. Brava. I'm anticipating I'll be told that I'm far too obtuse to understand your advanced understanding of economics. Am I close, or will you surprise me?

There's nothing difficult about understanding my point if you are capable of looking at today's American economy as a non-self sufficient component of a global economy ! The money necessary to pay for a 'minimum acceptable American standard of living' for someone whose own skill levels are insufficient to provide such a standard of living for themselves must come from a forced reduction in the standard of living of other higher skilled Americans. While they are working illegally, Illegal immigrants in America are only eligible for perhaps 1/2 of the 'minimum acceptable American standard of living' benefits right now (depending on the court rulings of particular states). If granted amnesty, they will become 100% eligible ! If granted amnesty and employed legally, former illegal aliens will indeed be required to pay 7.4% SSI and medicare tax totalling perhaps $1500 per year. However, if granted 100% access to social welfare programs via amnesty, the additional cost to higher skilled Americans to pay for those increased benefits will greatly exceed $1500 a year.

Because the American economy is no longer self-sufficient, and because American unskilled labor costs are much higher than most other parts of the world (via gov't mandate), on a percentage basis the need for unskilled labor in America declines with each passing year. Yes there are certain exceptions where the unskilled labor need is not 'transportable'. However, American employers with a non-transportable need for unskilled labor are already investing in automation / consolidation / other measures to reduce their need. The end result is that the vast majority of illegal aliens don't really have anything positive to offer the American economy if they must be paid at a gov't mandated minimum wage rate.

Melonie
01-17-2007, 04:42 AM
Returning to the exchange between Smartcookie and Sirona at the beginning of this thread, I'm perfectly willing to have completely open borders here in the U.S.

I think it would be a good idea to go back to the immigration policy prior to 1891 in return for a few changes in policy. In 1891, there was no 16th amendment yet extant, and no income taxes or sales taxes in any of the states.


I hear that. Actually your point is just as valid re the existance of medicaid benefits, subsidized rent benefits, subsidized utility benefits, welfare checks, Social Security checks, minimum wage pay rates etc. - all of which did not exist in 1891 either !

Sirona
01-17-2007, 05:37 AM
It's funny everyone assumes that those that don't speak the language are the one's that aren't here legally. You see them walking down the street and assume they don't have their paperwork...

I have NEVER assumed that but thanks for telling me I did. I know a good handful of people for whom English is a second language, one in which they are less than fluent, who are here legally.



Maybe you should look at all the requirements here and realize that to be a resident and have a legal status it's not a requirement to speak English and that many of those with papers are here temporarily. Those are the ones that are sending money back home, in many cases it's so they can move back to their country and live their lifes. If they're only here temporarily then why should they assymilate to a way of life which they don't plan to have for long?

I don't give a flying fuck if they're working here on a temporary basis in order to send money home. There's a guy who works under my boyfriend. He's from Ecuador. Really nice dude. He speaks shitty English. His family remains in Ecuador. He works assloads of hours and sends the majority of his money home. He is in this country LEGALLY. Know what I say? Good for you guy! Seriously. I think it's cool he has the opportunity to make life better for he and his wife and kids.

Do I want him to assimilate? Nope! He's going back home eventually. Whatever.

Would I feel the same way about the guy and his situation if he had snuck into the country and did the same? Oh hell no. Fuck that shit.

Once again, we aren't talking about people here with work visas/greencards/student visas... You know, people in the country LEGALLY.

We're talking about the people who sneak into the country and are here ILLEGALLY.

datchapin
01-17-2007, 08:32 AM
First of all, it was never said anywhere in this discussion that simply because someone doesn't speak English that they are not here legally. So out of everything we had to say, that's what gets to you? I have no idea what you were reading, because it certainly was not this thread, as that was never even mentioned. Not once.

And you're accusing Yek of being closed-minded? May I ask about what exactly? It was explicitly clear the parallels she was attempting to draw from what she said about emigrating to another country and how she has empathy towards people legally emigrating to the US and how it can be a pain in the ass because she herself has had first hand experience trying to emigrate to another country.

Lastly, we were not discussing people who are in the U.S. temporarily and legally. We were talking about those who are here illegally, plain and simple. And once again, it was never even brought up by anyone that someone here on a temporary work permit should try to assimilate into American culture and not send money back home. Unless I'm incredibly confused and have been hit upside the head with a baseball bat causing some sort of brain damage, I was under the impresssion that once again, we were talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.

You really don't see the connection? Okay, I'm sorry. Allow me to explain, various times it has been implied or mentioned that illegal immigrants are doing jobs for wages that citizens would not do. However that is a misconception, due to a language barrier those that are taking those jobs and undercutting the wages do in fact have papers, in many cases. However due to their lack of communications skills they are unable to attain better wages. As a general public however we see the lack of knowledge of English and easily lump them into the illegal category.

Because she herself is going into a position whereby she can become an illegal alien in another country. She should sympathize more because she is trying to put herself in that situation. Like I said earlier it's not something that she or anybody has to do in order to become an illegal as it is a status and can change without your knowing. Something as simple as a missed letter can do this. Another thing, I may be wrong, but I'm assuming she's in the U.S. so that would mean she's pretty low on the totem pole in Australia. Nothing against her, but her wait is going to be that much longer.

You're right, we aren't. I just wanted to point out different things, because illegals don't just jump over the border and are here illegally. There are many ways in which one can become illegal. I'm just putting the information out there because the more one knows the better one can assess the situation.

datchapin
01-17-2007, 08:42 AM
I think anyone with any sense can recognize that the culture of the USA is unique. Yes, it has been influenced over the centuries, but it's ours now. As for your question, "What law specifically did they break" - are you fucking serious? They broke the law that prohibits them from entering the country without proper documentation! :banghead:

Of course, many become involved in gangs, labor law violations, commit rapes and murders, drive without insurance (my personal favorite, as that one costs me a fortune), etc. But the one that ALL illegal immigrants have broken is the code that the INS and Border Patrol are there to enforce!

I'm sorry, but I disagree. We are influenced heavily by the rest of the world and to say that our culture is inherently ours I just do not think that is true.

As for my question, you don't even know what kind of law is they break, much less could you find it. I'm not calling you out, but it's true it's a trick question. You can't find a law under which all IA would fall under.

You should consider where the problem stems. It's not about the people it's the actual law. While I usually agree that some laws should be respected the U.S. pretty much shoots itself in the foot when it comes to this. Yes, come here legally, however if you don't come here legally stay here for three years and we'll give you papers. If you actually read the immigration laws here you would realize that they are a joke

datchapin
01-17-2007, 08:51 AM
Ever think WHY I want to be an Australian? Maybe it's because they're actually taking care of their own, and defending their own culture. Australia is what this country was supposed to be, but we lost our way.

I'm angry with this country because there are too many of the lunchboxes and datchapins, and not enough people who actually care about it. It's not that I don't care about this country; it's that I DO, and it pains me to watch us commit cultural and socioeconomic suicide.

I'm sorry you think I don't care. I won't correct you though, I don't care about the country, I care about those in it and it pains me to watch other's not care. Other's who bigot and hate, others who instead of looking for a solution let the problems fester and get worse. Others who instead of sticking it out an..... you know what, I'm sorry. I won't try to change your mind anymore, I guess your right and input by people like me who don't care isn't welcome.