• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schumer: Immigration bill to be ready by Labor Day

When you say, "taxes", are you referring to medicare and SS matching that employers have to do?
Yes.
Doing away with minimum wage laws isn't going to fix anything. People just aren't going to work for 3$ per hour and I don't blame them. They can make more than that on welfare, which is what all the new American citizens are going to figure out and be on welare quicker than you flick flies off of ****.
Yes, let's do away with welfare, too. Perhaps it would get people working, but if not, that's not my problem. I'd rather see a level playing field for everyone who desires to work. Right now, the deck is stacked against those who attempt to follow the law, and that's not right.
 
There isn't enough people at ICE to even make a dent in the problem. Therefore you must use state and local law enforcement

That is fine. If more money is needed, so be it. Tracking down criminals is worth spending money on.

So serious it's not even a felony?

Neither is drunk driving. Things don't have to be a felony to be a serious criminal act.
 
That is fine. If more money is needed, so be it. Tracking down criminals is worth spending money on.
Where are you getting this money? As it stands now, DC has been trying to make municipalities enforce immigration laws as an unfunded mandate. Since it isn't being funded, it must necessarily draw down police manpower levels.
Neither is drunk driving. Things don't have to be a felony to be a serious criminal act.
Drunk driving is piloting several tons of metal at a high rate of speed while voluntarily impaired, which is wrong in and of itself -- a malum in se. An immigration violation is basically crossing an arbitrary line without official permission, which is only "wrong" because there is a law forbidding it -- a malum prohibitum. They are not comparable.
 
Illegal immigration is not the fault of any government, but the fault of the people who chose to break laws to improve their situation.

Actually, the trade liberalization angle will reveal the fact that governments that negotiated trade agreements that provided financial benefits that accrued overwhelmingly in the interests of the American (and to a lesser extent, the Mexican) financial class bear responsibility for the exacerbation of inequitable international wage differentials and destabilization amongst the Mexican working classes that created a need for immigration.

There is no excuse for being a criminal.

Of course there is. Civil disobedience, for example, was and is based on the violation of laws in accordance with presumed higher ethical standards. In this case, an interest in sustenance seems a fairly appropriate cause for lawbreaking.
 
Where are you getting this money? As it stands now, DC has been trying to make municipalities enforce immigration laws as an unfunded mandate. Since it isn't being funded, it must necessarily draw down police manpower levels.

So fund it. The cost of improved enforcement would be small in the overall scheme of the annual budget. We will never get all, but we can do better.


Drunk driving is piloting several tons of metal at a high rate of speed while voluntarily impaired, which is wrong in and of itself -- a malum in se. An immigration violation is basically crossing an arbitrary line without official permission, which is only "wrong" because there is a law forbidding it -- a malum prohibitum. They are not comparable.

Nice evasion. Drunk driving is not a felony, but is a serious crime. Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony, but is a serious crime. You may not think it is serious, and that is fine, you are welcome to your opinion, but to many of us, it is serious to have people enter our country without using the legal process.
 
Actually, the trade liberalization angle will reveal the fact that governments that negotiated trade agreements that provided financial benefits that accrued overwhelmingly in the interests of the American (and to a lesser extent, the Mexican) financial class bear responsibility for the exacerbation of inequitable international wage differentials and destabilization amongst the Mexican working classes that created a need for immigration.

That is a reason that people come to America illegally. It does not excuse doing so.

Of course there is. Civil disobedience, for example, was and is based on the violation of laws in accordance with presumed higher ethical standards. In this case, an interest in sustenance seems a fairly appropriate cause for lawbreaking.

Again, a reason to do something is not an excuse to do something. If you engage in civil disobedience, you become a criminal, and should be punished as the law calls for. Saying "oh, it's civil disobedience" does not magically make it allright.
 
That is a reason that people come to America illegally. It does not excuse doing so.

No logical analysis could abandon consideration of ethics in favor of mere blind adherence to legal standards. Such consideration is also a critical facet in the development of more rational legal standards through modification of existing ones.

Again, a reason to do something is not an excuse to do something. If you engage in civil disobedience, you become a criminal, and should be punished as the law calls for. Saying "oh, it's civil disobedience" does not magically make it allright.

Then you either don't seem to be referring to ethics, or have simply incorrectly conflated legal and ethical standards.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — The lead Democrat steering an immigration overhaul through the Senate said Wednesday he expects to have a bill ready by Labor Day that is more generous to highly skilled immigrant workers than those who are lower skilled and is tough on future waves of illegal immigration.

Howsabout he proves his sincerity and demonstrates some toughness, even a wet tortilla, on the current illegal tsunami-surfers, then?

In an interview with The Associated Press, Sen. Chuck Schumer said an immigration bill can be done by the end of the year or early next year that works out disagreements between labor and business interests on the flow of legal foreign workers.

Gee...big surprise, no mention of the needs of Americans who need jobs....oh, and by the way, the Messiah's jobless figures are pushing double digits.

Schumer said the way to get the bill done is to be very tough on future waves of illegal immigration. He declared himself pro-immigration and said the U.S. should encourage legal immigration and find some kind of path for people now here to find a way to legal citizenship.

The path already exists.

The Invader goes back to the country he started from, fills out the application, and WAITS. THERE.

When we need him, we'll call.

"I think one of the ways to bridge it is to

forget what he things, he's trash.

The way to "bridge" it is to arrest employers of invaders and fine the living crap out of them, to arrest invaders found or reported and holding them in custody until they can be expelled. If they don't want to take their anchor baby brats back to their ****hole countries, they become wards of the state, where they get to learn english and english only.

Ana Avendano, AFL-CIO's director of immigration policy, said Schumer's "one size doesn't fit all" view is shared by labor. "We want employers to have workers they need, but the key is determining when there is a real need, not one employers make up when they import temporary workers."

This isn't hard to do.

Once the employes who don't like jail fire their Invader workforce, they'll be hiring domestic unskilled "workers". So they'll need protection from completely ridiculous racial and sexual harassment lawsuits, and similar bull**** our indigenous indigents have become accustomed to abusing to manipulate the system.

So, tort reform is required, which is piss off the lawyers supporting the Democrats. How sad.

And, because we want a competitive workforce, we'll have to end our totally insane habit of subsidizing our indigenous indigents, and we'll have to turn off welfare, so the lazy bums will have increased desire to pick strawberries.

Sounds perfectly fair.

Earlier Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said beginning Sept. 8, businesses wanting federal contracts would have to use E-Verify, a Web-based system, to check whether their employees are legally working in the U.S. The Bush and Obama administrations had delayed implementing the rule.

I've been telling ya Bush is a liberal.

Any more questions?

The department also said it is abandoning a Bush administration plan to force employers to fire workers who can't resolve a mismatch between their Social Security numbers don't match their names. The administration said it would come up with a new rule.

That's fine. The new rule should be: if you have Invaders on the staff, go to jail.

We don't have to force them to fire the Invaders, just make it expensive.
 
Seems like it would make more sense to change the system in a way that would reduce the length of the line and remove the temptation for not using the system.

But I guess that's unpatriotic of me to even suggest ...

Agreed.

First step: Eliminate welfare and insist employers verify the legal residency of employees, with penalties for hiring them, and also penalties for not reporting illegal invader applicants they do not hire.

That'll pretty must shorten the demand for outside unskilled labor (our public schools are mass producing ignorant unskilled adults at an unprecedented rate) and remove temptation for breaking the law, too.

And if illegals are caught, fingerprint'em, DNA'em, and heave 'em over the fence.
 
Why should we divert police resources away from finding rapists and murderers to catch those productive members of the workforce who are guilty of nothing more than an administrative offense?

Because if we arrested all the invaders, we'd also catch a bunch of murderers and rapists and drug dealers and petty criminals and invaders, too.

What part of illegal are you not picking up on?
 
Nor will it result in 20 million illegal immigrants ever being effectively deported, since they will attempt to return if domestic conditions if their homelands have not changed.

The use of well dispersed anti-personnel mines at the most popular border crossings will discourage recidivism.

Domestic conditions need to change here too.

Absolutely. It should be against the law for an illegal invader to be able to file any kind of lawsuit against any legal American resident for actions that resident took to defend himself, his home, his family, his property, and his favorite cactus from the depredations of the Invader.

Buckshot is a good deterent to Invasion, I hear.

Firstly, we need to eliminate excessive demand for low-skilled labor,

Easy.

Eliminate welfare.
Eliminate minumum wage.

Our own unskilled starvlings will work, finally, for the first time in their useless lives.
 
Illegal immigration is not the fault of any government, but the fault of the people who chose to break laws to improve their situation. There is no excuse for being a criminal.

Oh, bull****.

The Mexican government published a pamphlet for it's citizens describing how to invade the US and how to evade the border patrol and other LEOs.

That makes it an INVASION, not simply a cultural phenomenon.

Mexico profits hugely from the cash taken out of the US economy that these INVADERS send home.

Naturally, the US suffers from the lost cash. If it ain't circulating north of the border, it ain't doing us any good.
 
Where are you getting this money?

Easy.

There's tons more information in the government's computers than is needed to find out which employers are hiring invaders.

Arrest those employers and fine them to finance further hide and seek games.

Also, identify the funds those employers have donated to political parties and fine the political parties (and I know it's both GOP and Dem, here) for their treason.
 
No logical analysis could abandon consideration of ethics in favor of mere blind adherence to legal standards.

No logical analysis can make it ethical for our elected government to violate the very first principle of governance: the protection of the nation from invasion.
 
The use of well dispersed anti-personnel mines at the most popular border crossings will discourage recidivism.

Sorry, but my libertarian sentiments prevent me from supporting that sort of authoritarian police state policy, not that it would work anyway. That said, your candidness is refreshing; it's typically the case that you disingenuously cloak your ideology with euphemisms and newspeak (such as referring to capitalism as "libertarian" :rofl), so this is certainly a welcome change. :2wave:

Absolutely. It should be against the law for an illegal invader to be able to file any kind of lawsuit against any legal American resident for actions that resident took to defend himself, his home, his family, his property, and his favorite cactus from the depredations of the Invader.

"Invader"? As long as you're dealing with nativist and nationalist sentiments, the descendants of the European population who live in the U.S. are descendants of the true invaders, the invaders who deliberately expelled and antagonized the indigenous population from which mestizo immigrants are partially descended from. But as it were, you have the American financial class to blame for destabilizing conditions in Mexico and profiting from the exacerbated of inequitable international wage differentials. Perhaps you should shoot them.

Buckshot is a good deterent to Invasion, I hear.

That won't be tolerated. As noted by immigration rights advocate Armando Navarro, "obviously some of us have experience in the military, so there will be maybe some elements of surprises in terms of activities, and that is a warning to the militias."

Easy.

Eliminate welfare.

That's a rather poor suggestion for an advocate of capitalism to make. Welfare programs are a necessary element of maintaining the stability and efficiency in the capitalist economy, and sustain the physical efficiency of the working class without negatively impacting on other forms of efficiency, and also providing assorted other benefits in terms of reductions in inequality. For example, we could refer to Headey et al.'s Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ As noted by the abstract:

A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases - best economic performers - in what G. Esping-Andersen calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.

When we keep in mind the fact that unemployment is a form of static inefficiency, the benefits of preventing unemployment are clearly more expansive than mere "moral" purposes; there's a legitimate interest in preventing inefficiency involved with prevention of unemployment.

Eliminate minumum wage.

Why? It seems that this suggestion is only based your inaccurate and naive conception of labor markets being perfectly competitive or something near it, which you erroneously use to maintain these beliefs about the minimum wage's alleged adverse effects on unemployment. However, this perspective fails to incorporate the existence of monopsony and oligopsony, "[n]ot monopsony in the sense of there being a single buyer of labor, but monopsony in the sense of the supply of labor to an individual firm not being infinitely elastic." As put by Alan Manning:

[M]inimum wages...are seen as raising wages above the market-clearing level, reducing employment in the affected sectors. But, in oligopsonistic labor markets, minimum wages and trade unions are unlikely to have the same effect. If labor markets have substantial wage dispersion (and both theory and evidence suggest that they do), then minimum wages are likely to "push" the wage distribution from below as, by definition, they directly affect the lowest wages in the market...

The reality that firms are confronted with upward sloping labor supply curves thus yields an analysis that must incorporate that fact, which is why the empirical literature does not support the assertion that the minimum wage has an adverse effect on employment. For instance, we could turn to Machin et al.'s (in which Manning is included), The Effects of Minimum Wages on Employment: Theory and Evidence from Britain. Consider the abstract:

Recent work on the economic effects of minimum wages has stressed that the standard economic model, where increases in minimum wages depress employment, is not supported by empirical work in some labor markets. We present a general theoretical model whereby employers have some degree of monopsony power, which allows minimum wages to have the conventional negative impact on employment but which also allows for a neutral or positive impact. Studying the industry‐based British Wages Councils between 1975 and 1992, we find that minimum wages significantly compress the distribution of earnings but do not have a negative impact on employment.

Of course, I can understand how your antipathy toward empirical research would cause you to ignore this reality.

Our own unskilled starvlings will work, finally, for the first time in their useless lives.

I doubt that. As long as capitalism endures, there will be a financial class permitted to be lazy sluggards through the hoarding and selective distribution of capital, the very epitome of authoritarian economic arrangements.
 
No logical analysis can make it ethical for our elected government to violate the very first principle of governance: the protection of the nation from invasion.

There's no sound ethical principle that provides a basis for resisting immigration. Conversely, if we approach the issue from a utilitarian perspective, permitting relatively unrestricted immigration (while simultaneously eliminating inequitable international wage differentials through fair trade, of course) is a means to the greatest maximization of happiness.

For example, we could consider an analogy (of the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer) wherein there was a nuclear explosion in a region of the world and one nation constructed luxurious and expensive underground shelters that would protect them but another nation neglected to do so and was thus subject to the harmful effects of radiation even after the detonation. If a large number of the residents of the latter nation wished to gain access to the underground shelters of the former nation, but it would require sacrifice of some of the more luxurious amenities of the shelters, most would agree that it would be unethical to not permit them access, because the suffering inflicted on those subject to the effects of radiation would be more severe in intensity, duration, etc. than the suffering inflicted on those subject to the loss of luxurious amenities and commodities. We can thus refer to a sort of "diminishing felicific utility" that's linked to increases in standards of living beyond basic necessities; that is, an expensive wristwatch typically provides less happiness than food and basic shelter does, for example.
 
Sorry, but my libertarian sentiments prevent me from supporting that sort of authoritarian police state policy,

You're a socialist, and we all know socialists are against freedom, so you can't be a libertarian.

"Invader"?

Invader.

I like to use the correct words. It makes the issues clearer.

That won't be tolerated.

So the invaders aren't going to tolerate people defending their homes and their families.

And you agree with the invaders.

That's a rather poor suggestion for an advocate of capitalism to make.

Terminating welfare and arresting people breaking the law?

Yes, that's just tewwible, isn't it?

Welfare programs are a necessary element of maintaining the stability and efficiency in the capitalist economy,

Funny, then how the US did so well for so long without it.

So much for your contention. We didn't have any stupid welfare programs until that socialist pig FDR forced them on us, and the nation did just fine for the 150 years before that.

When we keep in mind the fact that unemployment is a form of static inefficiency,

No. Unemployment is the natural result of not having work.

Ya ever notice that no economy has ever had 100% employment?
 
That is fine. If more money is needed, so be it. Tracking down criminals is worth spending money on.



Neither is drunk driving. Things don't have to be a felony to be a serious criminal act.

DUI isn't a serious criminal act. That's why it's not a felony.
 
You're a socialist, and we all know socialists are against freedom, so you can't be a libertarian.

The term "libertarian" was coined by anarchists and has since been misappropriated by American capitalists. Socialists support self-governance in both social and economic affairs, whereas advocates of capitalism support economic authoritarianism through hierarchical arrangements in internal firm structure.

Invader.

I like to use the correct words. It makes the issues clearer.

An "invasion" implies the existence of a conscious and focused military objective to eventually overthrow the existing government of a nation-state. Something along those lines was the nature of the European aggression against indigenous Americans, but their descendants have been forced to migrate after destabilization caused by governmental trade liberalization.

So the invaders aren't going to tolerate people defending their homes and their families.

And you agree with the invaders.

Immigrants seeking work and those who wish to aid them will not tolerate aggressive interlopers assaulting and killing them, and will resist them with their own methods if necessary until they're appropriately educated. :)

Terminating welfare and arresting people breaking the law?

Yes, that's just tewwible, isn't it?

Actually, I think the termination of welfare might be a sound approach. It would cause the destabilization of capitalism more quickly.

Funny, then how the US did so well for so long without it.

So much for your contention. We didn't have any stupid welfare programs until that socialist pig FDR forced them on us, and the nation did just fine for the 150 years before that.

We didn't have corporate capitalism during that period of time either. We instead had relatively agrarian conditions that fostered a far higher level of egalitarianism than is present in the currently existing U.S. economy. FDR was also not a socialist; socialism requires the collective ownership and management of the means of production, and FDR's programs were designed to stabilize capitalism. They didn't even muster Keynesianism. That said, I'm unsurprised to see you again ignoring

No. Unemployment is the natural result of not having work.

Ya ever notice that no economy has ever had 100% employment?

Of course I have. That's a necessary condition of the capitalist economy, as noted by Shapiro and Stiglitz in Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device.

[T]o induce its workers not to shirk, the firm attempt to pay more than the going wage; then, if a worker is caught shirking and he is fired, he will pay a penalty. If it pays one firm to raise its wage, however, it will pay all firms to raise their wages. When they all raise their wages, the incentive not to shirk again disappears. But as all firms raise their wages, their demand for labor decreases, and unemployment results. With unemployment, even if all firms pay the same wages, a worker has an incentive not to shirk. For, if he is fired, an individual will not immediately obtain another job. The equilibrium unemployment rate must be sufficiently high that it pays workers to work rather than to take the risk of being caught shirking.

As mentioned, unemployment constitutes a form of static inefficiency. But since a sufficiently high rate of equilibrium unemployment is necessary to prevent workers from shirking, it's a necessary form of static inefficiency, because were it not present, underemployment would exist in the internal firm. External inefficiency thus becomes a necessary form of internal efficiency in the capitalist economy.

But there's plenty for resisting an invasion.

I'm sure. When you spot one, be sure to let us know. :2wave:
 
The term "libertarian" was coined by anarchists

Yeah, you lost that argument.

The anarchist coined it because he was trying to lie, as all anarchists will.

Libertarianism in the US is about liberty, not socialism, and a nation can't have liberty if it permits itself to be destroyed by the first invading horde of illiterates that comes sauntering across the border.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you lost that argument.

The anarchist coined it because he was trying to lie, as all anarchists will.

Providing a historically accurate account of the term that capitalists misappropriated and now misuse doesn't quite constitute a "loss," but I'm glad to see that the feds have backed off from messing with our reefer distribution. :2wave:

Libertarianism in the US is about liberty, not socialism, and a nation can't have liberty if it permits itself to be destroyed by the first invading horde of illiterates that comes sauntering across the border.

Libertarianism is incompatible with any economic theory other than socialism, because it requires self-governance, which is incompatible with a state of affairs wherein workers are compelled to subordinate themselves under hierarchical conditions in the capitalist firm. But that's regardless and another derailment on your part, since you haven't provided any evidence of liberty being destroyed by day laborers that really don't have to be literate in English to perform such tasks as they do, although a higher portion of the "Latino/Hispanic" population does believe learning English is important than either blacks or whites. :roll:
 
I say we should implement a small bounty on them. That could help the cash strapped legal americans. If they report a illegal immigrant that leads to deportation they get a small sum. If you report on a legal person you are fined the same amount (would help avoid people calling on every hispanic they see).
 
Nice evasion. Drunk driving is not a felony, but is a serious crime. Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony, but is a serious crime. You may not think it is serious, and that is fine, you are welcome to your opinion, but to many of us, it is serious to have people enter our country without using the legal process.
Evasion? That particular distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se is a pretty well-grounded legal idea that we brought over from England a couple of centuries ago. The only evasion happening is your evasion of such an obvious distinction. Comparing drunk driving to illegal immigration is ridiculous, and I showed you why.
 
Evasion? That particular distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se is a pretty well-grounded legal idea that we brought over from England a couple of centuries ago. The only evasion happening is your evasion of such an obvious distinction. Comparing drunk driving to illegal immigration is ridiculous, and I showed you why.

Yeah, we can't stop drunk driving, or even significantly reduce it from where it is now..

If we try hard enough, we can end the illegal invasion of the United States and reduce the flood of invaders to a level that can be handled without the damage to society the Invasion has wrought.
 
Back
Top Bottom