• 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!

The Unintended Consequences of the Steinle Decision

Nickyjo said:
Good grief! Then we would have to pay more for produce, hotel rooms, restaurant meals, etc. Won’t happen. We love cheap labor too much.
Click to expand...


I love how liberals argue for the exploitation of illegals for cheap labor.
 
iliveonramen said:
Then wherever you get your news is very selective about the stories they post. There are a multitude of studies that show lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants.
Click to expand...


Show me any study that distinguishes between immigrant crime rates and illegal immigrant crime rates and perhaps you might have some credibility.
 
dobieg said:
I love how liberals argue for the exploitation of illegals for cheap labor.
Click to expand...

I was being ironic. My point was that the argument about illegals rarely if ever mentions how they subsidize us. I would prefer a society where unions were strong and we paid our workers in those industries my post mentioned wages commensurate with their contributions. The US has always benefited from cheap labor starting with slavery. Don’t expect conservatives who complain about illegals to support policies that raise wages and make those jobs more attractive to non-ollegals.
 
Nickyjo said:
I was being ironic. My point was that the argument about illegals rarely if ever mentions how they subsidize us. I would prefer a society where unions were strong and we paid our workers in those industries my post mentioned wages commensurate with their contributions. The US has always benefited from cheap labor starting with slavery. Don’t expect conservatives who complain about illegals to support policies that raise wages and make those jobs more attractive to non-ollegals.
Click to expand...


Some of us believe it's a simple issue of supply and demand in the labor market.
 
dobieg said:
Some of us believe it's a simple issue of supply and demand in the labor market.
Click to expand...

Ah, but when the supply of workers is characterized by their illegal status, the system breaks down, Mr. Adam Smith. The free market works when there is level playing field. People who can be deported if the boss chooses to call the immigration service on paydays distorts the system. Either keep them all out or make them all legal.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
It becomes the rest of the countries business when taxpayers, nationwide are on the hook to fund the welfare roles.
Click to expand...

Well that would be a lovely theory. There's just one big problem with it....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...states-want-even-more/?utm_term=.b60bf886833f

You see as it turns out liberal blue states who tend to make more money, and have more wealthy people with higher average salaries actually contribute more towards federal taxes than red states generally do. If California could keep all the money it pays in federal taxes for itself and not have to give any of it to ****ty states like Alabama or Mississippi then it can more than afford to cover all it's people whether they're documented or not. In fact if those undocumented immigrants became legal they would suddenly be paying more in state taxes as well which would benefit California even more.

But since you think it's unfair for some states to be on the hook to bail out other states with their tax dollars I can only assume you'd be willing to tell all the red states who accept more in federal tax dollars than they generally pay in to stop doing that.
 
Sweden said:
Thanks for that additional information. "A jury of his peers" - I had nor realised that the jury was entirely composed of illegal immigrants who had previously deported from the USA multiple times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see Californians particularly those in the San Francisco area don't view themselves as being superior to anybody else just because they happened to be born on the right side of an imaginary line. They consider themselves all human beings and as a result your documentation or lack their of does not change your a human being who is entitled to basic human rights.
 
MrWonka said:
Yeah, see Californians particularly those in the San Francisco area don't view themselves as being superior to anybody else just because they happened to be born on the right side of an imaginary line. They consider themselves all human beings and as a result your documentation or lack their of does not change your a human being who is entitled to basic human rights.
Click to expand...

Is serving on a jury in a foreign country a "basic human right"? Maybe the next time I visit the US - legally of course - I'll ask to be put on one.
 
Sweden said:
Is serving on a jury in a foreign country a "basic human right"? Maybe the next time I visit the US - legally of course - I'll ask to be put on one.
Click to expand...

I would say it is a basic political right. Some political systems do not have the jury system.

I've read that one of the things Putin has done for Russia's political system is to restore the jury to its rightful place. Quite the dictator, eh?
 
chuckiechan said:
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/unintended-consequences-steinle-decision/



So... He was charged for being a felon in possession of a firearm, no second degree anything. The guy will probably be released with "time served". It's the same charge as if they found the stolen firearm in the trunk of his car and the gun got up by itself and walked out, tripped, and killed someone. They say he is going to be deported, but don't hold your breath. He will return to the warm arms of the sanctuary city of San Francisco where life is getting cheaper by the day.

This ought to put some lead in Jeff Session's pencil. There are numerous federal laws against killing people.
Click to expand...

There may be existing laws against killing people, but those in Frisco seem to not be too keen on following many laws in the first place.
Illegal alien convicted felons are a protected class there.
This verdict proves it beyond all doubt.
 
PleasantValley said:
There may be existing laws against killing people, but those in Frisco seem to not be too keen on following many laws in the first place.
Illegal alien convicted felons are a protected class there.
This verdict proves it beyond all doubt.
Click to expand...

The class protected from prosecutions for crimes is the political class in Washington DC. Hear, hear, we must all look forward, not backwards. Move along here
 
Thoreau72 said:
I would say it is a basic political right. Some political systems do not have the jury system.

I've read that one of the things Putin has done for Russia's political system is to restore the jury to its rightful place. Quite the dictator, eh?
Click to expand...

Correct. We do not have juries in Sweden. In routine cases it may not matter too much but citizens have no defence against bad laws.
 
CriticalThought said:
Um...you posted from conservative sources. To be "high end" you have to be conservatively biased?
Click to expand...

"High" and "low", in my post, refers to the numbers quoted.

The CNN article included the whole spectrum in various references.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom