Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

  1. #1
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    How about Mexico suing US citizens about actions on our own soil in our own courts over illegal aliens.

    There will come a time when everyone will remember the good ole days when Bush was in charge and the Nationalist Party wasn't.

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    It will be extremely interesting to see how the statistics shape up after the coming one month of 'free border patrol assistance' on the part of volunteers. However, with all of the advance publicity I suspect that many prospective Mexican border crashers will simply postpone their attempts until May.

    As to the triple fence project south of San Diego, in theory this should put a serious 'dent' in the seasonal cross border illegal traffic. Many illegals living in Southern Cal typically make a couple of trips 'home' to Mexico during holiday seasons, and then sneak back in to resume their 'American' lives. With the installation of a triple wall fence this seasonal 'migration' will be slowed down considerably.

    In the larger picture, the existance of 14 miles of triple fence along a border several hundred miles long is simply going to shift the location of concerted illegal immigrants and their facilitators. However, if recent elections are any indication, if the San Diego fence is successful in slowing down traffic, and if the state gov't and DHS can come up with the money, it's very probably that 200 more miles of fence will be appearing along the Arizona border soon !

    Ironically, the triple wall fence proposal is not new - it was actually approved in 1996 and has been fought tooth and nail by California liberals and environmentalists ever since.




    In regard to the 'rights' granted to the Mexican illegal aliens in US courts which underlie the Mexican gov'ts ability to bring US lawsuits on their behalf, what can I say. The US court system makes very little logical sense to me in any case. For example, the US court system grants convicted murderers the right to 20 years worth of federal appeals litigation regarding the right of a state to take their lives, while at the same time the same US court system has authorized by default the right of the same state to take the life of a comatose woman who has committed no crime. It will be extremely curious to see how the US supreme court handles the 'rights' of illegal immigrants versus the rights of US citizens issue when the s#!t hits the fan, which is likely to occur sooner than later given the developing climate.
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-20-2005 at 09:40 AM.

  3. #3
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    On the one hand, the fence is a good idea - and the environmental reports I've read don't argue AGAINST a fence, just about how it will be done and where it will go - fences through sensitive land are stupid, and we need to respect the animal's habitat and migration needs as well.

    On the other hand, the same adminsitration is working to fund a "super highway" from Mexican Border to Oaklahoma - not the usual 224-foot-wide swath but a 1,200 foot wide cut right through the heart of the US and great plains. Of course, farmers and ranchers whose lives will be runied by this are upset, but being drowned out by political buddies of the contractor.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-highway_x.htm

  4. #4
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    On the one hand, the fence is a good idea - and the environmental reports I've read don't argue AGAINST a fence, just about how it will be done and where it will go - fences through sensitive land are stupid, and we need to respect the animal's habitat and migration needs as well.

    On the other hand, the same adminsitration is working to fund a "super highway" from Mexican Border to Oaklahoma - not the usual 224-foot-wide swath but a 1,200 foot wide cut right through the heart of the US and great plains. Of course, farmers and ranchers whose lives will be runied by this are upset, but being drowned out by political buddies of the contractor.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-highway_x.htm

    How many illegals will ride this new highway? We're closing one border and opening another...

    But what would America do without illegals (tongue in cheek)? we might actually have to pay living wage to our crop harvesters, stop using dangreous chemicals on the fields (illegals can't complain as much ) and see the real cost of food production! Oh no...fair economy,we cant have that

  5. #5
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    Comparisons to the Berlin Wall are stupid. That was to confine people in East Germany... this is to keep illegals out.
    The USA Today highway story was dumb as well... haven't the ranchers ever heard of bridges?
    Why put a road next to another? 50 miles away would be ideal. Sure, include high speed rail. And it's privately funded.... just as toll ways and toll lanes have been funded in California...nothing new about that.
    Also, I thought the problem was that companies do pay minimum wage and obey environmental laws... in the US.... but Mexicans don't have those laws.... that's why industry moved there. Let's return to a guest-worker program (as the President proposed).
    Last edited by myssi; 03-20-2005 at 06:28 PM.

  6. #6
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    But what would America do without illegals (tongue in cheek)? we might actually have to pay living wage to our crop harvesters, stop using dangreous chemicals on the fields (illegals can't complain as much ) and see the real cost of food production! Oh no...fair economy,we cant have that
    I know you meant this tongue in cheek. But the fact of the matter is that our economy is dependent on foreigners to do our, "dirty work". Let's face it, there are some jobs that american citiizen's just won't too. The long term solution to the problem is not higher fences or more border guards, its a higher standard of living in Mexico.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  7. #7
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    On both counts, you're right...for MOST Americans, there are some jobs we don't want (would rather take public assistance than pick strawberries) and we do rely on them....but IMHO:

    as a nation we should make sure the jobs aren't paid less than a living wage just 'cause we don't want to do it. Any job worth doing, is worth making sure the one doing it can survive without the taxpayer. Let the unwanted jobs be for lack of interested people, notbecause we've found a "slave class" willing to work for peanuts

    As for global standard of living,yes! Start with making sure workplaces are safe and don't poison their communities (or the air) so that the workers aren't subjected to conditions we wouldn't want to be. Then, as soon as possible, make sure pay scales are inline or above their local economies.

    "All men are created equalis more than a historic phrase...it should be our national motto (reading men to mean both genders). Don't discriminate based on the papers someone has (or doesn't have), color, creed, etc. Remaining legal (in choosing legal workers) is ideal, but NO JOB should be allowed which doesn't have a living wage attached.



    From personal experience, illegals are used in many industries (locally, TJMAXX uses them in a call center) that aren't jobs we don't want - it's a tool for the companies to save labor $$$. That's why ALL jobs in America (and globally) should be based on a LIVING wage...

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    Also, I thought the problem was that companies do pay minimum wage and obey environmental laws... in the US.... but Mexicans don't have those laws.... that's why industry moved there ...

    The long term solution to the problem is not higher fences or more border guards, its a higher standard of living in Mexico. ...

    As for global standard of living,yes! Start with making sure workplaces are safe and don't poison their communities (or the air) so that the workers aren't subjected to conditions we wouldn't want to be. Then, as soon as possible, make sure pay scales are inline or above their local economies.

    Beneath all good wishes is a fundamental reality ... that the 'value added' by doing some jobs is simply not sufficient to 'trade' in exchange for some minimum standard of living that a gov't/society has arbitrarily set. When those jobs are forcibly preserved, with rates of pay mandated by a gov't or by a union which are greater than the amount of 'value added' they actually contribute, the difference has to be made up from somewhere. The difference can be made up by gov't sanctioned transfer of wealth via taxes, or the difference can be made up by attempting to charge higher prices to the customer. Regardless of the method of 'cost shifting', the fact remains that the situation leaves the realm of a supply and demand economics and enters the realm of socialism to one degree or another.

    The 'problems' begin when alternatives present themselves which return to the basic supply and demand economics, whether that is illegal aliens willing to clean US department stores for $3 an hour, computer programmers in India willing to run corporate payrolls for 1/2 the going US price, doctors in Thailand willing to interpret X-rays for 1/2 the going US price, auto workers in South Korea willing to build cars for 1/2 the going US price, or 1000 similar examples. In the last 10-20 years the former barriers to a true world economy ... distance, language, lack of education, lack of capital investment ... have all changed, and not in America's favor.

    You are right that any real solution to these 'problems' must address the large disparity which exists. However, there are simply not enough resources, not enough 'value added', to raise the rest of the world to 'our' level, despite the best of intentions. There are barely enough resources and 'value added' for America to raise citizens within its own borders to that arbitrary 'living wage' minimum level, which other citizens pay for daily in the form of high taxes and high prices.

    Therefore the only realistic alternative is for the US to drift downward to 'their' level - particularly in terms of jobs which contribute very little actual 'added value' in comparison to the existing pay rate. When that day arrives we will no longer need a fence to keep Mexicans from coming north, because 'poor' Americans, if faced with a reduction in welfare, medicaid, HUD and other gov't funded benefits, will again choose to work at such low paying jobs because it will provide them a better life than not working and collecting generous benefits presently does. While this solution might be realistic in economic terms, it certainly isn't realistic in political terms, so the disparaty will continue and the wall will be needed to 'buy' additional time for America's ultimately unsustainable economy.
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-20-2005 at 09:25 PM.

  9. #9
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    We disagree on the fundamental reality. I say that if :

    You need a job done to create a product, or society has decided certain jobs need to be done, that job requires a person. That person needs to live in the society where the work is being conducted. Housing, food, medical care, spending money - these require means, which means the person needs a reasonable income. TO provide this person with less than a reasonable (possibly low income, but sustainable for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)income will not only be unconstitutional and unfair it is dangerous and counter productive to the sustaining of a society.

    If that job is important to all people in a state, town or federal level...then the taxpayer absorbs that cost through agency budget. If not, it's a private cost due from the company producing the item. The cost is then passed to consumers of the product instead of the taxpayer

    Basically, the premise translates to the people who use the service should be more responsible for bearing this cost than those who aren't using the product or service. - Reflecting to your hybrid car/gas tax statements, you agree with this premise - that people who use a resource (like roads) should bear the fair share of the costs. Why can't the same rule apply here? Just because the same logic would place responsibility on the profit-making private enterprise rather than the individual consumer or taxpayer?

    To me, this IS SUPPLY AND DEMAND economics. The demand for the end product (is demand high enough to justify the actual cost of the production?) will decide what jobs are/aren't needed, and what products/services are needed. Yes, it might mean people purchase fewer things...they will have to decide what's important based on the REAL COSTS of items...but all people will have a living wage and be able to make those decisions.

    In short, I won't be burdened subsidizing workers in industries I don't support (chain stores, etc.), and the taxpayer won't be subsidizing private industry. All workers will have safe workplaces that don't externalize their costs by "free dumping" their poisons in teh water, air or ground...making the area around their plants unlivable.

    Consider:
    If you live in Florida, should you pay for Minnesota snow plowing services through taxes? If I never go to WalMart or eat fruit from migratory farms...why should I pay for their worker's subsistence via my taxes?

    To your other point:
    I have NO problem with low cost workers in other countries (provided the workspaces are safe and environmentally as benign as our laws require for US equivalents) underbidding US workers. That's what makes different communities, states, countries competitive for inndustry. My community has a low cost of living...$30,000 here has the equivalent buying power of $45,000 elsewhere (salary.com)...but jobs still need to pay fair value FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
    Last edited by discretedancer; 03-20-2005 at 09:42 PM.

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    If you live in Florida, should you pay for Minnesota snow plowing services through taxes? If I never go to WalMart or eat fruit from migratory farms...why should I pay for their worker's subsistence via my taxes?
    I'm in total agreement that you/we shouldn't. Reducing medicaid, HUD, subsidized utility bills etc. would solve that problem by the way ! But the same argument applies when the 'subsidy' is collected through higher prices i.e. the extra dollar charged on every can of coffee at Safe Mart. Why should we pay that either to 'subsidize' union wages for shelf stockers which are totally disconnected from the 'real' added value of the service they perform ? Your argument condemns the former but supports the latter, indicating an underlying political preference for that method of implementing 'cost shifting' versus another method, but you still support for the idea of 'cost shifting' being acceptable.

    I'm saying that 'cost shifting' to subsidize some arbitrary standard of living which in reality costs more to provide than the 'added value' generated by the person can pay for, by whatever method that 'cost shifting' is implemented, is the root of the problem.

  11. #11
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    But the same argument applies when the 'subsidy' is collected through higher prices i.e. the extra dollar charged on every can of coffee at Safe Mart.
    But if the supply chain which produces that product, including the cost of putting the bottle on the shelf, costs X amount (providing everyone up the line with enough money to live reasonably in their community) - why is that bad?

    You may consider unions the enemy - but why isn't that simply free enterprise, with the workers (supply of labor, demand of jobs) balancing with the companies (demand of labor, supply of jobs). Why does it start to become subsidy to you, just because [you've decided the job isn't valuable. Those people doing the work still deserve a fair wage...and I still deserve not to subsidize their basic needs, or the jailing of them when they find crime is a better career.

    If it isn't valuable, don't do it. If it must be done and you think there's a cheaper way, find it. Don't start saying some humans are worth a fraction of others...we removed that article from the constitution long ago!

    Your argument condemns the former but supports the latter,
    You want to shift the costs of stocking the shelves over to the taxpayer (who will have to pay for these people's subsistence through programs, or by fighting the crime which results from too many peopele denied opportunity for too long), and allow the company to therefore subsidize its lower costs and make ever larger profits - while the taxpayer (simultaneously subsidizing the community programs and a smaller number of people able to pay their bills) faces deficits, shrinking economy, and ever more tenuous social status and increased crime.

    arbitrary standard of living which in reality costs more to provide than the 'added value' generated by the person can pay for
    1. arbitrary standard of living. Yes, I'll grant you there isn't always logic to the system, but EVERYONE HAS TO LIVE IN IT. We can't make another place (once called a plantation or company village) for the people in this "lower tier" of jobs....they need to live in our society. The standard was not set by them, but by us. On their backs...and they deserve fair compensation

    2. more to provide than the value. You decided which jobs cost more than the value they add? I ask again, why do them?

    Seems you're trying to legitimize the taking advantage of another human being. Of making them work hours (more than 40 in many cases), get paid less than it costs to live, all in the protection of some "arbitrary standard of living" that you villify. Perhaps we should all give up our standard of living, accept inferior wages and lower-than-safe living conditions, a lack of healthcare and begin relying more heavily on charity...because of course you don't want social programs for these people, that just props up a standard of living.

    What is the line, by the way, below which the work has not enough added value to allow the person doing it a reasonable living? Isn't price (in a free market) defined by cost of production + profit + taxes and fees? Cost of production would (by definition) include labor costs, no?

  12. #12
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    On both counts, you're right...for MOST Americans, there are some jobs we don't want (would rather take public assistance than pick strawberries) and we do rely on them....but IMHO:

    as a nation we should make sure the jobs aren't paid less than a living wage just 'cause we don't want to do it. Any job worth doing, is worth making sure the one doing it can survive without the taxpayer. Let the unwanted jobs be for lack of interested people, notbecause we've found a "slave class" willing to work for peanuts
    Of course, this would raise the price of our strawberries, perhaps to the point where some people might consider buying bananas instead. I wonder if they pay a living wage in Honduras? Probably not, because if they did, illegal immigrants would have a lot less incentive to sneak over our border.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  13. #13
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    "Of course, this would raise the price of our strawberries, perhaps to the point where some people might consider buying bananas instead." Horrors...people actually have to pay what something is worth! Can't have that!

    " I wonder if they pay a living wage in Honduras?"
    1. I don't know, but it's irrelevant to whether we in the US should. Some countries use slave labor, prison labor or children (often in factories producing things for the US market)....so that means we should? Why?

    2. If we had a policy of requiring all imported products and services to be produced in safe, environmentally and socially sustainable facilities or they couldn't be imported - the Honduran bannana fields would get better fast, or lose the US market.

  14. #14
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    "Of course, this would raise the price of our strawberries, perhaps to the point where some people might consider buying bananas instead." Horrors...people actually have to pay what something is worth! Can't have that!

    " I wonder if they pay a living wage in Honduras?"
    1. I don't know, but it's irrelevant to whether we in the US should. Some countries use slave labor, prison labor or children (often in factories producing things for the US market)....so that means we should? Why?

    2. If we had a policy of requiring all imported products and services to be produced in safe, environmentally and socially sustainable facilities or they couldn't be imported - the Honduran bannana fields would get better fast, or lose the US market.

  15. #15
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How to send US citizens on the march to nationalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol
    How about Mexico suing US citizens about actions on our own soil in our own courts over illegal aliens.

    There will come a time when everyone will remember the good ole days when Bush was in charge and the Nationalist Party wasn't...
    Well, I don't know if there are any reasons why this can't be done, but if Mexico really does want to bring up the idea of lawsuits, I have a few suggestions. Arizona, California and Texas plus any other affected states should sue Mexico for the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens from Mexico, plus punitive damages. Those U.S. citizens who have had loved ones maimed or murdered by any illegal alien gang members from Mexico should be permitted to sue the government of Mexico for damages. U.S. citizens who are incarcerated in Mexican prisons due to police corruption should also be permitted to sue Mexico for actual and punitive damages. So if the Mexdican government is so anxious to sue U.S. citizens in court, I'm sure they'll be willing to accept these modest suggestions for U.S. citizen lawsuiits against the government of Mexico.


    PhaedrusZ

Similar Threads

  1. Bookings in Europe for US Citizens?
    By Krissy Kennedy in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-06-2006, 09:02 PM
  2. What are you doing for the displaced citizens?
    By TJAndDani in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-07-2005, 07:30 PM
  3. Can non-US Citizens work in Guam?
    By tenshigirl25 in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-26-2005, 10:08 AM
  4. Illegal Immigrants and Healthcare vs US Citizens
    By Deogol in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2005, 12:38 AM
  5. Atheists not citizens ?
    By AvaAngel in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2005, 09:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •