How to create 12 million jobs for Americans by the spring of 2010.

[HogTrash]

End all public services for illegal aliens including health care and education...Emergency rooms will be available to illegals for child birth and emergency life threatening treatment only with absolutely no exceptions.

Initiate E-Check Employment Varification and enact a $10,000 fine for anyone employing an illegal alien and a $25,000 fine and mandatory jail time for a second offense...Require the same varification for housing with penalties for renters.

Repeal the law that makes any child born in the US a citizen unless at least one parent is a US citizen, to be retroactive to no time or age limit...Homeless hungry illegals will begin the process of self deportation the same as when they entered.

The governments conservative estimates for illegals in the US is 12 million but many experts have estimated the number to be as high as 20 million...I am pretty confident that at least 12 million American jobs would quickly become available.

Does this sound cruel?...Does this sound heartless?...Does this sound cold and uncaring?...Let me ask you a question?...Would you buy your next door neighbors kid a pair of shoes and let your own child go barefooted?...How about go hungry?

We did not invite these people to be a burden on us...We can no longer afford them...It's a matter of priorities...Them or us...Their children or our children...At this time we do not have the luxury of making decisions with our emotions, we must use our heads.

12 million jobs would go a long way in putting America and Americans on the road to economic recovery...Wages and working conditions would also greatly improve...Of this I am 100% positive...I realize this is as politically incorrect as it gets but consider my plan anyway.

[Binky]

I'm just wondering how many, if any, other countries as shelling out money, hand over fist, and letting illegals live and work there, catering to them, like America is.........What about England, Germany, France, Norway, Finland, Etc. Etc. Etc.......? Are they harboring them as well? And are they giving them all a free pass? You know............as we have....... Everyday......All day.....they are constantly consuming.....and consuming.....and consuming...............

[HogTrash]

I'm just wondering how many, if any, other countries as shelling out money, hand over fist, and letting illegals live and work there, catering to them, like America is.........What about England, Germany, France, Norway, Finland, Etc. Etc. Etc.......? Are they harboring them as well? And are they giving them all a free pass? You know............as we have....... Everyday......All day.....they are constantly consuming.....and consuming.....and consuming...............Actually, consuming is a good thing as long as it is products they are purchasing and not being provided by the taxpayers, but another problem is a large percentage of their American earnings is exported to their families back home adding to our already to large deficit.

Lets face the facts, these illegals are sucking our resources dry, driving wages down and draining money from every household in the United States and our representatives in government seem to believe this is a good thing...If you don't believe me just push 2 for spanish.

[MtnBiker]

Lets face the facts, these illegals are sucking our resources dry, driving wages down and draining money from every household in the United States and our representatives in government seem to believe this is a good thing...If you don't believe me just push 2 for spanish.

Would you think differently if the immigrants were here legally?

[HogTrash]

Would you think differently if the immigrants were here legally?I believe our immigration policies are way to lax.

Unemployment should signal an end to immigration, especially non-english speaking minorities.

White South Africans are facing persecution, rape, assaults and murder and should be considered first when the economy improves.

We should welcome them to America as refugees if they wish to come as I'm sure many will want to in the near future.

Most are a good, hard working, freedom loving, independent class of people and would make good Americans I believe.

There are many white europeans whose nations are being overun by Islamic fundamentalist and may wish to escape the growing crime and brutality.

They along with all other white people in the world who are facing persecution should be placed at the top of America's immigration list as refugees.

America needs to return to what made it the greatest, wealthiest most powerful and free nation in the world...White!

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Yeah, I agree, we need to make it impossible for them to be here.
2. Unless they entered legally.
3. They get health care and a right to be here when they pop out a child.
4. Which they don't take a wife here, oh no, they smuggle over their sweat hearts from their little towns.
5. Knock her up and get everything FREE!
6. Then get set up on food stamps, housing, and whatever we are willing to shell out to them.
7. While myself I can't get a crap sandwich from my tax dollars, can't even pay for health insurance for myself, because I have pre-existing*
8. Yeah because I'm WHITE, and own my own house.
9. It would be better to be a illegal alien!
10. I could be taken care of, and not to worry, its all FREE!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[chloe]

End all public services for illegal aliens including health care and education...Emergency rooms will be available to illegals for child birth and emergency life threatening treatment only with absolutely no exceptions.

Initiate E-Check Employment Varification and enact a $10,000 fine for anyone employing an illegal alien and a $25,000 fine and mandatory jail time for a second offense...Require the same varification for housing with penalties for renters.

Repeal the law that makes any child born in the US a citizen unless at least one parent is a US citizen, to be retroactive to no time or age limit...Homeless hungry illegals will begin the process of self deportation the same as when they entered.

The governments conservative estimates for illegals in the US is 12 million but many experts have estimated the number to be as high as 20 million...I am pretty confident that at least 12 million American jobs would quickly become available.

Does this sound cruel?...Does this sound heartless?...Does this sound cold and uncaring?...Let me ask you a question?...Would you buy your next door neighbors kid a pair of shoes and let your own child go barefooted?...How about go hungry?

We did not invite these people to be a burden on us...We can no longer afford them...It's a matter of priorities...Them or us...Their children or our children...At this time we do not have the luxury of making decisions with our emotions, we must use our heads.

12 million jobs would go a long way in putting America and Americans on the road to economic recovery...Wages and working conditions would also greatly improve...Of this I am 100% positive...I realize this is as politically incorrect as it gets but consider my plan anyway.


I will agree with this but not the whites only theme. I would like to add that we should also abolish welfare and health care insurance altogether. If we don't abolish welfare then they should be required to follow policies setup by taxpayers much the same as workers have to follow company policies or get fired. They should have to pass a drug test I have to pass on to work a job, they should pass one to sit on their ass. Also eliminate healthcare insurance completely, there was a time we didn't have it and we should be allowed to negotiate our own contract with our own private doctor and hospital cut the middleman out.

[HogTrash]

I will agree with this but not the whites only theme. I would like to add that we should also abolish welfare and health care insurance altogether. If we don't abolish welfare then they should be required to follow policies setup by taxpayers much the same as workers have to follow company policies or get fired. They should have to pass a drug test I have to pass on to work a job, they should pass one to sit on their ass. Also eliminate healthcare insurance completely, there was a time we didn't have it and we should be allowed to negotiate our own contract with our own private doctor and hospital cut the middleman out.Chloe, you don't seem to understand that when the blacks and the hispanics become the majority in America, this nation will begin to look like Mexico, Venezuella, Cuba, Haiti, and about every nation in subsaharan Africa.

Corruption, desease, crime, rape, assaults, murder and every horror you can imagine...Would you drop your children off in the ghetto of any city in America?...Would you yourself venture into the ghetto in any city in America?

With the exception of the wealthy gated communities and extreme rural areas, thats what most of America will look like...This is your children's future...Do you believe I'm lying or that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Believe me when I say, you do not want an America where your children and grandchildren will be the minority...Don't be like the liberals...Think with your head not your emotions...We're gonna hafta abandon political correctness.

[Binky]

Actually, consuming is a good thing as long as it is products they are purchasing and not being provided by the taxpayers, but another problem is a large percentage of their American earnings is exported to their families back home adding to our already to large deficit.

Lets face the facts, these illegals are sucking our resources dry, driving wages down and draining money from every household in the United States and our representatives in government seem to believe this is a good thing...If you don't believe me just push 2 for spanish.



Oh don't worry....I'm a believer..... I wonder if other countries say, "push 2 for spanish as well...."

[Binky]

Chloe, you don't seem to understand that when the blacks and the hispanics become the majority in America, this nation will begin to look like Mexico, Venezuella, Cuba, Haiti, and about every nation in subsaharan Africa.

Corruption, desease, crime, rape, assaults, murder and every horror you can imagine...Would you drop your children off in the ghetto of any city in America?...Would you yourself venture into the ghetto in any city in America?

With the exception of the wealthy gated communities and extreme rural areas, thats what most of America will look like...This is your children's future...Do you believe I'm lying or that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Believe me when I say, you do not want an America where your children and grandchildren will be the minority...Don't be like the liberals...Think with your head not your emotions...We're gonna hafta abandon political correctness.


That is such a lovely picture you paint... But alas, one day, that is exactly how it will all take shape.....

In Michigan, we have what I call an invisible line that goes across the state from Saginaw Bay over to Lake Michigan....Below that line are large cities with full of crime of all sorts....Flint, Pontiac, Detroit and others all have huge ghetto areas....These are not places I care to go....

I live above that line. There will be no going back.........

[Binky]

Chloe, you don't seem to understand that when the blacks and the hispanics become the majority in America, this nation will begin to look like Mexico, Venezuella, Cuba, Haiti, and about every nation in subsaharan Africa.

Corruption, desease, crime, rape, assaults, murder and every horror you can imagine...Would you drop your children off in the ghetto of any city in America?...Would you yourself venture into the ghetto in any city in America?

With the exception of the wealthy gated communities and extreme rural areas, thats what most of America will look like...This is your children's future...Do you believe I'm lying or that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Believe me when I say, you do not want an America where your children and grandchildren will be the minority...Don't be like the liberals...Think with your head not your emotions...We're gonna hafta abandon political correctness.


That is such a lovely picture you paint... But alas, one day, that is prob'ly how it will all take shape.....

In Michigan, we have what I call an invisible line that goes across the state from Saginaw Bay ( the curve at the thumb) over to Lake Michigan....Below that line are large cities full of crime of all sorts....Flint, Pontiac, Detroit and others all have huge ghetto areas....These are not places I care to go....

I live above that line. There will be no going back.........Not me. Not ever.....

[sgtdmski]

Would you think differently if the immigrants were here legally?

Of course, they would be here within the rules of the law. They would pay taxes and be working. The problem with illegal aliens in this country is just that they are here breaking the law, not subject to any of the laws we must abide and then take the money they earn and ship it out of this country.

We should severely fine any company that does business with illegal aliens, including the money service companies by fining them a sum equal to 4 times the money they send out of the country.

dmk

[Agnapostate]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/columbus_illegal_big.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/european_criminals_big.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/immigrants.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/weareindienouslarge.jpg

No, but in all seriousness, immigration both legal and illegal is caused by international wage and condition differentials exacerbated by neoliberal economic policies. Mexican and other Latin American labor conditions are characterized by a lack of basic workers’ rights and benefits, and the alleged benefits of adherence to IMF/WTO policies are dubious. Moreover, the expansion of trade liberalization that NAFTA brought about sparked the Second Great Migration. The lack of workers’ rights in Mexico and Central/South America means that laborers will be subject to authoritarian and exploitative conditions, with the top-down hierarchies that characterize the capitalist labor market being especially rigid there.

The populist opposition to neoliberalism is often found in indigenous society; the violent insurrection of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (a predominantly Tzotzil Mayan group) was launched in the poorest and southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas on January 1, 1994, the same day that NAFTA went into effect.

Most importantly: Aside from the unethical nature of these authoritarian proposals, we must consider labor market segmentation in considering illegal immigrants' lesser provision of tax that funds government expenditures; their confinement to the informal labor market and inability to acquire legitimate Social Security numbers in the formal labor market naturally means that they'll be unable to pay income and payroll taxes that rival those of legal citizens. The obvious solution to that is amnesty.

My own perspective is that discrimination based on national origin is unjust, because as with race and sex, national origin is not a consciously chosen characteristic, since no one controls the circumstances of their birth.

There is a basic division here between the libertarian and the authoritarian. Enforcement of a closed border between the U.S. and Mexico is just as authoritarian as the division created by the Berlin Wall. Both are national divisions designed to constrain freedom of movement and force residence in a certain country. While some will seize upon the seemingly critical difference that the Berlin Wall kept people in while the U.S.-Mexico border wall keeps people out, the Berlin Wall merely kept people out of West Germany, and the U.S.-Mexico border merely keeps people in Mexico and Central/South America. In both cases, the consequences are that people are forced to remain in more destitute conditions. If there is a difference, it’s that there’s a greater desire to leave Mexico than there was to leave East Germany.

[CSM]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/columbus_illegal_big.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/european_criminals_big.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/immigrants.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/weareindienouslarge.jpg


Most importantly: Aside from the unethical nature of these authoritarian proposals, we must consider labor market segmentation in considering illegal immigrants' lesser provision of tax that funds government expenditures; their confinement to the informal labor market and inability to acquire legitimate Social Security numbers in the formal labor market naturally means that they'll be unable to pay income and payroll taxes that rival those of legal citizens. The obvious solution to that is amnesty.



Another "obvious solution" is to control our borders and then we wouldn't have "labor market segmentation" or an "informal labor market". To suggest that amnesty is the only solution seems narrow minded at best.

You seem to ignore that fact that there are LEGAL ways of entering this and most other countries. Many peoples of different national origins enter this country LEGALLY every day.

[chloe]

Another "obvious solution" is to control our borders and then we wouldn't have "labor market segmentation" or an "informal labor market". To suggest that amnesty is the only solution seems narrow minded at best.

You seem to ignore that fact that there are LEGAL ways of entering this and most other countries. Many peoples of different national origins enter this country LEGALLY every day.

I agree with csm, there are channels for becoming a citizen legally.

[chloe]

Chloe, you don't seem to understand that when the blacks and the hispanics become the majority in America, this nation will begin to look like Mexico, Venezuella, Cuba, Haiti, and about every nation in subsaharan Africa.

Corruption, desease, crime, rape, assaults, murder and every horror you can imagine...Would you drop your children off in the ghetto of any city in America?...Would you yourself venture into the ghetto in any city in America?

With the exception of the wealthy gated communities and extreme rural areas, thats what most of America will look like...This is your children's future...Do you believe I'm lying or that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Believe me when I say, you do not want an America where your children and grandchildren will be the minority...Don't be like the liberals...Think with your head not your emotions...We're gonna hafta abandon political correctness.


We have a white ghetto that has a bunch of white people on methamphetamine and they are crazy people ! I don't live in that neighborhood, because of the drugs and crimes, but not because of the color of the skin since most are white.

[Agnapostate]

Another "obvious solution" is to control our borders and then we wouldn't have "labor market segmentation" or an "informal labor market". To suggest that amnesty is the only solution seems narrow minded at best.

You've just dismissed a proposal that you don't even understand, as evidenced by your statement, so it's ironic that you'd call me narrow-minded. Labor market segmentation (division between the primary and secondary sectors, the formal and informal sectors, etc.) will always exist under capitalism.

There are two ways of reducing excessive immigration into the U.S. One of them is the authoritarian, and the other the libertarian. The authoritarian will entail effective militarization of the border and enforcement of police state tactics to maintain its security. There are several problems with this. The severe economic expenditure that it would entail would be an instance of ridiculously inefficient resource allocation that would ultimately cost more than the presence of illegal immigrants currently does. There are obvious ethical issues involved with the use of violent and perhaps lethal force on all unauthorized border crossers. And from that will stem the lack of political feasibility of any such plan, as some people, mysteriously enough, seem to find the idea of shooting and blowing up Indian women and children from Oaxaca unappealing.

The other is the libertarian. This involves the repeal of the trade liberalization that caused the immigration boom of the 1990's and other neoliberal policies that exacerbate poor conditions in Mexico and other countries, combined with the legalization of border crossings. If international wage differentials are not so severe, this will reduce both push and pull factors for immigration, and a sealed border will not be any more necessary than it is between individual U.S. states or member-states of the European Union.

I tend to have a preference for the latter, you'll understand.


You seem to ignore that fact that there are LEGAL ways of entering this and most other countries. Many peoples of different national origins enter this country LEGALLY every day.

It's curious why you'd believe that state programs might manage immigration levels so efficiently and effectively when the rightist opinion seems to be that they function so poorly in other regards. But more than that, while many people enter legally, many more are prevented from doing so, which is obvious as there would be no benefit to attempting dangerous desert crossings if it were simply a matter of waiting a bit until entry through authorized checkpoints was permitted. You also seem to have a bit of legal fetishism, as evidenced by your capitalization of the words "legal" and "legally." We should avoid that, as legal and ethical standards are divergent (i.e. slave ownership was legal but unethical; slave liberation was illegal but ethical, etc.), and if we cannot express a compelling ethical objection to illegal immigration, that should be telling.

[HogTrash]

That is such a lovely picture you paint... But alas, one day, that is prob'ly how it will all take shape.....

In Michigan, we have what I call an invisible line that goes across the state from Saginaw Bay ( the curve at the thumb) over to Lake Michigan....Below that line are large cities full of crime of all sorts....Flint, Pontiac, Detroit and others all have huge ghetto areas....These are not places I care to go....

I live above that line. There will be no going back.........Not me. Not ever.....I know exactly what you are talking about Binky...I have been all over the lower peninsula.

Much of the part of Michigan you mentioned can be a very dangerous place and is getting worse all the time.

What is scarey is it is constantly growing and spreading outside it's bounderies...It is coming someday soon to a neigborhood near you.

In fact it is coming to your neighborhood someday no matter where you live...White America seems to be in a daze and oblivious to what's happening.

By the way, above that "invisible line" your state is a beautiful place...I summer vacationed in Mackinaw back in the late 90's.

Great people, hotels, casinos, restaurants, golf courses, beaches, those beautiful islands and the Mackinac bridge is breathtaking, especially after dark.

[CSM]

You've just dismissed a proposal that you don't even understand, as evidenced by your statement, so it's ironic that you'd call me narrow-minded. Labor market segmentation (division between the primary and secondary sectors, the formal and informal sectors, etc.) will always exist under capitalism.

Where did I dismiss the proposal? I offered an alternative which you ignored in your little screed.

There are two ways of reducing excessive immigration into the U.S. One of them is the authoritarian, and the other the libertarian. The authoritarian will entail effective militarization of the border and enforcement of police state tactics to maintain its security. There are several problems with this. The severe economic expenditure that it would entail would be an instance of ridiculously inefficient resource allocation that would ultimately cost more than the presence of illegal immigrants currently does. There are obvious ethical issues involved with the use of violent and perhaps lethal force on all unauthorized border crossers. And from that will stem the lack of political feasibility of any such plan, as some people, mysteriously enough, seem to find the idea of shooting and blowing up Indian women and children from Oaxaca unappealing.

The cost of maintaining our border is more appealing to me than paying for illegal immigrants, no matter how innefficient. Ethics are perspective based. I have no problem with the use of force in keeping criminals from entering this country.

The other is the libertarian. This involves the repeal of the trade liberalization that caused the immigration boom of the 1990's and other neoliberal policies that exacerbate poor conditions in Mexico and other countries, combined with the legalization of border crossings. If international wage differentials are not so severe, this will reduce both push and pull factors for immigration, and a sealed border will not be any more necessary than it is between individual U.S. states or member-states of the European Union.

Poor conditions existed in Mexico long before "trade liberalization". The poverty in Mexico is NOT the responsibility of the US government or any other nation's government (except the Mexican government, of course).

I tend to have a preference for the latter, you'll understand.

Utopian ideals won't solve the issue, but I understand.

It's curious why you'd believe that state programs might manage immigration levels so efficiently and effectively when the rightist opinion seems to be that they function so poorly in other regards. But more than that, while many people enter legally, many more are prevented from doing so, which is obvious as there would be no benefit to attempting dangerous desert crossings if it were simply a matter of waiting a bit until entry through authorized checkpoints was permitted. You also seem to have a bit of legal fetishism, as evidenced by your capitalization of the words "legal" and "legally." We should avoid that, as legal and ethical standards are divergent (i.e. slave ownership was legal but unethical; slave liberation was illegal but ethical, etc.), and if we cannot express a compelling ethical objection to illegal immigration, that should be telling.

Of course some are allowed in and others are not. That's what "controlling the borders" really means.

If you want to restrict the use of the term "legal" then you must restrict the use of the term "ethical" because, as you point out, they are divergent. You cannot have your self-licking ice cream cone. Indeed, the crux of our discussion seems to be legality vs. ethics. It is easy to "win" a debate if you restrict the discussion to only your point of view.

As for the efficiency of state programs, I submit that a state program is better than NO program at all (in this particular case).

[HogTrash]

I agree with csm, there are channels for becoming a citizen legally.

We have a white ghetto that has a bunch of white people on methamphetamine and they are crazy people ! I don't live in that neighborhood, because of the drugs and crimes, but not because of the color of the skin since most are white.Sometimes I think you're hopeless Chloe...You resist reality with passion and conviction.

Hmmm?...If it isn't political correctness programming then what else could it possibly be?

You almost seem like a 1960's hippie chick living in a fantasy land of peace and free love.

[Agnapostate]

How about actually replying with quote division instead of inserting stupid little bold text that creates extra work for others?


Where did I dismiss the proposal? I offered an alternative which you ignored in your little screed.

Actually, you just regurgitated rightist cliche without even bothering to understand the nature of my statement. You do not understand labor market segmentation or labor economics in general, but simply chose to dismiss what you perceived as a "pro-illegal" sentiment without comprehending it.


The cost of maintaining our border is more appealing to me than paying for illegal immigrants, no matter how innefficient.

Then your stance is at odds with economic rationality, inasmuch as our task is to allocate scarce resources efficiently.


Ethics are perspective based.

That's technically correct, but I suspect that you were attempting to convey the idea that ethical analysis was purely subjective, and that one stance is as good as another. That would be moral relativism, but ethics is dependent on argument and moral reasoning. So no, the ethical position won't be dismissed so easily.


I have no problem with the use of force in keeping criminals from entering this country.

Again, there is no actual ethical basis for your claims, since you haven't articulated a more serious ethical problem with this particular criminality. There is no aspect of your statement that couldn't also have been applied to Harriet Tubman. But more than that, regardless of your jingoistic and statist sentiments, most people aren't fans of this vulgar authoritarianism, and a police state isn't going to be enacted through democratic means anytime soon.


Poor conditions existed in Mexico long before "trade liberalization". The poverty in Mexico is NOT the responsibility of the US government or any other nation's government (except the Mexican government, of course).

Current levels of international wage differentials did not exist prior to trade liberalization; it's the extension of the U.S. capital class into Mexico rather than the Mexican working class into the U.S. that constitutes encroachment. Moreover, national origin is not a conscious choice or decision, so I won't be content with the very fundamental injustice of a lower-class Mixtec being discriminated against by the white upper-class Mexican government and then informed that it was *his* fault that *his* government did not act appropriately.


Utopian ideals won't solve the issue, but I understand.

You clearly do not, as it is your stance that is the utopian one.


Of course some are allowed in and others are not. That's what "controlling the borders" really means.

And I have no interest in something that does not promote equality of opportunity, and the ability of people to rise and fall based on their own merits rather than predetermined outcomes.


If you want to restrict the use of the term "legal" then you must restrict the use of the term "ethical" because, as you point out, they are divergent. You cannot have your self-licking ice cream cone. Indeed, the crux of our discussion seems to be legality vs. ethics. It is easy to "win" a debate if you restrict the discussion to only your point of view.

I have no idea what that poorly constructed paragraph meant, but I suspect that it was related to your earlier fallacy about ethics and subjectivity.


As for the efficiency of state programs, I submit that a state program is better than NO program at all (in this particular case).

Not an actual conservative, I see. That's telling enough. :beer:

[CSM]

How about actually replying with quote division instead of inserting stupid little bold text that creates extra work for others?

No.

Actually, you just regurgitated rightist cliche without even bothering to understand the nature of my statement. You do not understand labor market segmentation or labor economics in general, but simply chose to dismiss what you perceived as a "pro-illegal" sentiment without comprehending it.

You have no idea what I comprehend and what I do not. Careful with those mental gymnastics ... you could hurt yourself.

Then your stance is at odds with economic rationality, inasmuch as our task is to allocate scarce resources efficiently.

Nope. I will post however I see fit as long as it doesn't violate the rules.

"Our" task is to control the borders. Hopefully efficiently.


That's technically correct, but I suspect that you were attempting to convey the idea that ethical analysis was purely subjective, and that one stance is as good as another. That would be moral relativism, but ethics is dependent on argument and moral reasoning. So no, the ethical position won't be dismissed so easily.

Who cares what you suspect? I suspect a lot of things about you but nobody cares about that either. Nevertheless, ethical analysis IS purely subjective; that does not mean that one stance is as good as any other. At least you admit that ethics is dependent upon morality.

Again, there is no actual ethical basis for your claims, since you haven't articulated a more serious ethical problem with this particular criminality. There is no aspect of your statement that couldn't also have been applied to Harriet Tubman. But more than that, regardless of your jingoistic and statist sentiments, most people aren't fans of this vulgar authoritarianism, and a police state isn't going to be enacted through democratic means anytime soon.

I personally do not care what "most people" are fans of. Most people are not fans of your particular brand of vulgar crap yet you do not care either. I would point out that you have not artculated the more serious legal problems associated with this particular ethical dilemma.

Current levels of international wage differentials did not exist prior to trade liberalization; it's the extension of the U.S. capital class into Mexico rather than the Mexican working class into the U.S. that constitutes encroachment. Moreover, national origin is not a conscious choice or decision, so I won't be content with the very fundamental injustice of a lower-class Mixtec being discriminated against by the white upper-class Mexican government and then informed that it was *his* fault that *his* government did not act appropriately.

I reject that argument. It is because the wage differential existed in the first place that trade liberalization was necessary. I do not agree with this liberalization but the US capital class went inot Mexico precisely because of the wage disparity.

You clearly do not, as it is your stance that is the utopian one.

LOL.... hardly.

And I have no interest in something that does not promote equality of opportunity, and the ability of people to rise and fall based on their own merits rather than predetermined outcomes.

And I have no interest in something that promotes non productivity and stifles self reliance and responsibility.

I have no idea what that poorly constructed paragraph meant, but I suspect that it was related to your earlier fallacy about ethics and subjectivity.

No it relates to constructing the rules of debate to exclude pertinent and relevant subject matter so that one can only reach the conclusions you desire.


Not an actual conservative, I see. That's telling enough. :beer:

LOL... my conservativism or lack thereof is another debate which could easily degenerate into infantile "yes you are ... no you aren't" types of exchanges. I'm sure you see enough of that in our playground at recess.

[Agnapostate]

I'm not picking through one of your useless posts if they're poorly formatted. That was undoubtedly your intent, so that you could falsely claim victory, but it's still too tedious and boring for me. :)

[chloe]

Sometimes I think you're hopeless Chloe...You resist reality with passion and conviction.

Hmmm?...If it isn't political correctness programming then what else could it possibly be?

You almost seem like a 1960's hippie chick living in a fantasy land of peace and free love.

I am a lost cause agreed.:cool:

[CSM]

I'm not picking through one of your useless posts if they're poorly formatted. That was undoubtedly your intent, so that you could falsely claim victory, but it's still too tedious and boring for me. :)

I have been posting this way since I joined this board. Fortunately, none of my posts are useless so you have a lot of "picking" to do! Any useless posts I make in the future will be formatted to your liking....promise!



I never claim "victory" on a message board. In my opinion, there is no such thing in these types of forums. You will not convince me you are correct and thus change my way of life one iota and I am quite certain that there is absolutely nothing I can say that would have the same effect on you.


If you find my posting style "tedious and boring" you surely realize how tedious and boring yours are to read, never mind address!

[chloe]

Hogtrash if someone agrees with most of what you say about fixing the country with the exception of "whites only" then they are programmed and there is no hope for them? So basically as long as someone agrees with you 100% they are not programmed but if they only agree with most but not all of what you say they are programmed. How is it that you are not trying to program others to conform to your views or opinions?

[HogTrash]

Hogtrash if someone agrees with most of what you say about fixing the country with the exception of "whites only" then they are programmed and there is no hope for them? So basically as long as someone agrees with you 100% they are not programmed but if they only agree with most but not all of what you say they are programmed. How is it that you are not trying to program others to conform to your views or opinions?I only say someone is programmed when they respond to almost every subject in the same way as others, not because they disagree with me.

Political correctness indoctrination is easy to spot after you've heard the same programmed responses and tactics repeated several hundred times.

[chloe]

I only say someone is programmed when they respond to almost every subject in the same way as others, not because they disagree with me.

Political correctness indoctrination is easy to spot after you've heard the same programmed responses and tactics repeated several hundred times.

You said alot on the first post, there is only one thing I dont agree with.

[SassyLady]

MY own perspective is that discrimination based on national origin is unjust, because as with race and sex, national origin is not a consciously chosen characteristic, since no one controls the circumstances of their birth.


It is not discrimination, or unjust, to require an individual to adhere to the laws of the country they wish to immigrate to.

An individual might not control the circumstances of their birth, but they have the same opportunity to become a legal resident of this country as anyone else.

[HogTrash]

Originally Posted by Agnapostate
MY own perspective is that discrimination based on national origin is unjust, because as with race and sex, national origin is not a consciously chosen characteristic, since no one controls the circumstances of their birth.If 90% of illegals or terrorist are of a certain race, religion or ethnicity, it is a matter of common sense to single out the groups of people that best fit the discription of the known violaters in question.

In fact, if even 50% of a certain group fit the discription of the usual violaters it would be OK...Discrimination, racism or hate has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever...It's about common sense.

And yes this most certainly does have to do with what you posted!