Start fining employers who hire undocumented workers @ $1000 per day of known employment per undocumented worker.
Deny healthcare/welfare to anyone who is not an american citizen or has a valid VISA.
Those should take care of part of the problem.
Start fining employers who hire undocumented workers @ $1000 per day of known employment per undocumented worker.
Deny healthcare/welfare to anyone who is not an american citizen or has a valid VISA.
Those should take care of part of the problem.
How would you start securing the border, starting today, if you had control over DOJ/DOD/DHS/KFC?
The border is 1,969 miles long. I'd start by planting a hesco CoP every half-mile, ...
support groups and such. whats your estimate on that? as well as the infrastructure to handle prisoners? it appears to be an approach similar to the war on some drugs. i think we need to change the structure. we need to get folks here to stop hiring illegals. "if you hire them they will come" the reverse is true
Translation, please.Hesco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion)
hesco?
CoP?
Remove the welcoming economic environment for illegal labor and it will self deport at no cost to the taxpayer.
Remove the welcoming economic environment for illegal labor and it will self deport at no cost to the taxpayer.
+1
Deincentivize illegal immigration
Then, open borders.
VIVA LA LIBERTARIANISM or something
I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletterCan we get a group buy going?
Hesco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion)
CoP = Combat Outpost.
+1
Heavily armed borders keep you and me in as well as "the other" out.
The unintended consequences of a heavily militarized border need to be considered.
Again, a good start, but there's more than just illegal migrant workers coming across the border.
Weapon smuggling (heading north, despite what the media claims)
Drug smuggling
Human smuggling (despite popular belief, slavery is alive and well in the world, including in the U.S., most notably regarding prostitution)
So, you've covered one out of four problems coming across the border, what about the other three?
Hate to say it but we need the workers.How about tapping into the millions of non-working Americans who Obama added to the food stamp rolls? Adjust welfare benefits accordingly, and they'll start working once they get hungry enough.
How about tapping into the millions of non-working Americans who Obama added to the food stamp rolls? Adjust welfare benefits accordingly, and they'll start working once they get hungry enough.
Multi-step:
1. Eliminate minimum wage
2. Extend health insurance deductibility to everyone, not just employers
3. Allow insurance portability
4. Increase penalties for illegal employees
5. Increase throughput of INS
6. Eliminate ALL govt benefits for illegals
7. Revoke visa/resident status for negative tax basis immigrants based on multi-year--if you have net negative impact on economy after X years, goodbye.
8. Allow "buy in" citizenship
9. Incentivize targeted immigration for STEM with tax benefits, apply to citizens as well--including tax benefits for entrepreneurship
10. Eliminate "anchor baby" laws and corresponding preference for relatives except for #8
11. Massively increase enforcement/deportation
12. Absolutely secure border--true fence.
Hate to say it but we need the workers. Make it easy for migrants to come here to work. Make them pay things like income tax and SS. Legalize drugs to take the foundation out from underneath the smugglers. Tax that too. legalizing prostitution would probably go a long way to stop the human trafficking. Not to mention reduce the spread of disease. Tax that too. After all that, who is going to need to cross the border illegally?
Hate to say it but we need the workers. Make it easy for migrants to come here to work. Make them pay things like income tax and SS. Legalize drugs to take the foundation out from underneath the smugglers. Tax that too. legalizing prostitution would probably go a long way to stop the human trafficking. Not to mention reduce the spread of disease. Tax that too. After all that, who is going to need to cross the border illegally?
I'm all for stopping the invasion by illegals. But any plan will have to take into consideration those who own property along the border.
Thinking about it, I might also be interested in a long-term lease. Y'all can lease a portion of my property in perpetuity, from the border out to x distance and have right-of-way across specifically designated areas. Hell, might even lease it for $1 per year. My lawyer would hash out the details, but basically the .gov can't mess up the rest of the land.
How about tapping into the millions of non-working Americans who Obama added to the food stamp rolls? Adjust welfare benefits accordingly, and they'll start working once they get hungry enough.I can't think of a single rebuttal to this :lol:
Most of the southern border is desert. Not worth a damn. Even the border along the Rio Grande (Mis-named, IME. Not so grand.) isn't worth much, as water use of the RG is so heavily restricted by law & treaty.
You do know that the American Southwest is a frigging farming mecca and a miracle of modern irrigation, don't you?
The southwest is John Deere's largest and frequently most profitable territories.
Take a trip out to Yuma, AZ sometime. or El Centro, CA.
Other parts of the border near SE AZ or NM have significant pecan, walnut and other tree-borne nut crops.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.Somehow the meaning of the word "and" is lost to some in this case. We understand it when it comes to the family & kin of foreign ambassadors (from whom we withhold American birthright citizenship), but grant it to illiterate peasants.
I'm all for Mexican regime change, just keep it up until they get one who can make their country function and the people want to stay home. All the central american immigrants can then get a job in Mexico, leaving us to deal with just the Chinese spies, and hot Ukranian waitresses. Then the final touch. Seed money to mexican businesses for all the stuff hipsters like. Within a year Mexico will build our fence for us to keep them out.
While I agree with your idea, the devil in the details is moving some/many of the people to the jobs.A few items to consider . . .
Hate to say it but we need the workers. Make it easy for migrants to come here to work. Make them pay things like income tax and SS. Legalize drugs to take the foundation out from underneath the smugglers. Tax that too. legalizing prostitution would probably go a long way to stop the human trafficking. Not to mention reduce the spread of disease. Tax that too. After all that, who is going to need to cross the border illegally?
Multi-step:
1. Eliminate minimum wage
2. Extend health insurance deductibility to everyone, not just employers
3. Allow insurance portability
4. Increase penalties for illegal employees
5. Increase throughput of INS
6. Eliminate ALL govt benefits for illegals
7. Revoke visa/resident status for negative tax basis immigrants based on multi-year--if you have net negative impact on economy after X years, goodbye.
8. Allow "buy in" citizenship
9. Incentivize targeted immigration for STEM with tax benefits, apply to citizens as well--including tax benefits for entrepreneurship
10. Eliminate "anchor baby" laws and corresponding preference for relatives except for #8
11. Massively increase enforcement/deportation
12. Absolutely secure border--true fence.
Now, look whose sacredcowwalnut is getting squeezed?
Yes, but along the border not so much. Where the RG is the border, water use is tied up six ways to Sunday. Where the RG is not the border, water sources are too flipping far. And much of it would not exist without extortion of the taxpayers and gov'ts "invisible foot" mucking up the market.
Most of that "frigging farming mecca" would wither away without serious, big-time, ethanol-dwarfing gov't water subsidies and use restrictions. Remove the taxpayer-dollar support, force the ag users to compete with all the other potential users on the market, and you'd see a lot of them say, "Well, Hell, it doesn't make any sense to grow this stuff out in the middle of the desert."
I can't think of a single rebuttal to this :lol:
how do you plan on
a getting them to work?
b being worth minimum wage? heck being good enough to not ruin more crop than they pick?
Just to throw another bomb into the mix...
What about folks with chronic medical issues?
I'm honestly asking. Suppose I was crippled by a car upon walking out the front door, and the driver had no insurance. I get the feeling that some folks are "survival of the fittest", and would say "suffer and die" if I happened not to have medical coverage. If you aren't "suffer and die", then what limits?
a. Move. I've done it twice for work. Cross-country.
Great ideas! Let's have a show of hands. Who is up for a federal national ID to help implement some of these spiffy idea?
Takes money and resources for people to move, so how do you move the people to the jobs?
think harder there is a reason why they need the labor
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57551.html
The crops will rot in the fields!!111!!eleventy11!!
This comes up every time, but then, oddly, doesn't actually happen. Raise wages until folks become interested in doing the job. It costs the final consumer pennies. The less the Sloth Subsidy, the quicker folk become interested.
Likewise, if a person can live their life in such a way that they elicit no compassion or love from their family or friends, why should society as a whole bear the brunt of keeping such a worthless person fed, sheltered, clothed? Seriously? If you lived your life so recklessly and vapidly that you have no meaningful relationships to depend upon, why should you be "guaranteed" safety? No church relationships, no friends, no family, no lasting contributions to an employer that is particularly grateful... nothing.
Taxes are violence.
Is it worth committing violence on me to keep people fed/clothed that don't have value to people who could do so willingly?
Life's a bitch. Move, or die.
So Einstein, tell us how a poor inner-city person with no car would be able to move to a job in say ND?
Bus + walk.
If life were easy, Obama would be president.
So how are they going to live there once they get there until they get thier 1st pay check?
Motels cost money, you need deposits to rent apartments, etc.
http://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/northdakota.htmlI bet those are funded by government money, under AZred's plan those would be gone. Try again.
I bet those are funded by government money, under AZred's plan those would be gone. Try again.
You bet, or you know? Try again.
I don't think there are many manual farm labor jobs in North Dakota.
It's either cattle, or large field operations with big tractors and harvesters.
I was thinking manual labor oil field jobs.
Bus + walk.
If life were easy, Obama would be president.
Buses don't go everywhere either, some places not very close and buses take money to ride.
So what's the point of this line of inquiry, Charby?
That some people start with nothing and without government handouts they wouldn't be able to improve their situation and eventually die?
My point is that some people are unable to move to a job without a little financial help from somewhere. I also feel it unrealistic to expect a bus+walking as transportation to anywhere in the US for poor people, not every town of any size is served by a bus system.
My point is that some people are unable to move to a job without a little financial help from somewhere. I also feel it unrealistic to expect a bus+walking as transportation to anywhere in the US for poor people, not every town of any size is served by a bus system.
My point is that some people are unable to move to a job without a little financial help from somewhere. I also feel it unrealistic to expect a bus+walking as transportation to anywhere in the US for poor people, not every town of any size is served by a bus system.
My point is that some people are unable to move to a job without a little financial help from somewhere. I also feel it unrealistic to expect a bus+walking as transportation to anywhere in the US for poor people, not every town of any size is served by a bus system.
Given that the interior of America was settled in the 18th-19th centuries, mostly by poor people with no access to gov't or any assistance, it is not so impossible as some might think.
There was government assistance for them via the Homestead Act.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=31
Free land was a pretty good incentive to leave the family behind and restart in a strange land.
Relative to charby's point, we are all assuming single man, single woman, or married man with wife taking care of the kiddos back home. Include kids in the equation and it gets a whole lot more tricky.
Relative to charby's point, we are all assuming single man, single woman, or married man with wife taking care of the kiddos back home. Include kids in the equation and it gets a whole lot more tricky.
I think some folks here are forgetting the difference between their Anarchotopia beliefs about how things should be, and the political realities of the world in which we live.
Did government assistance also pay for a bus ticket to the free land?
Free land on the other side of the country.
Job on the other side of the country.
Still have to get there, in both cases.
Relative to charby's point, we are all assuming single man, single woman, or married man with wife taking care of the kiddos back home. Include kids in the equation and it gets a whole lot more tricky.
I also tend to forget about kiddos since I don't have any.
Also for the record I don't believe in handouts, I do believe in a hand up, such as some governmental assistance to get a person/family back on their feet after a job loss, natural disaster, etc. Also for people who want to get out of the welfare sterotypical life.
I also tend to forget about kiddos since I don't have any.
Also for the record I don't believe in handouts, I do believe in a hand up, such as some governmental assistance to get a person/family back on their feet after a job loss, natural disaster, etc. Also for people who want to get out of the welfare sterotypical life.
Things were just different then, life moved a lot slower, people got jobs by writing letters and using the postal mail with letters of reference. Many things were done by manual labor or animal locomotion.
Now a days, sometimes even a job at McDonalds or Walmart requires internet access and perhaps a couple face to face interviews. If you looked haggered and tried to walk across the country in some uppity communities you may end up with a free ride to jail because you don't belong there.
How many of you believe in hiring someone to shoot me in the face if I don't give over my money for your beliefs?
How many of you believe in hiring someone to shoot me in the face if I don't give over my money for your beliefs?
And kids are a choice, no? Actions have consequences.
Ain't that the truth
I never intended to have a kid
Why not a capitalist way? Even ultra-liberals tout microloans as working in impoverished other countries...why not something here? Find a way for someone to borrow $x @ reasonable rate, in a "ninja" fashion, without all the paperwork...
Basically, a kickstarter for people. I know plenty of people who would want to make a reliable 5-10% return on a few k to 10's of k, or more, but its the management that is the annoying part.
Word
How many of you believe in hiring someone to shoot me in the face if I don't give over my money for your beliefs?
You like hand-ups, give some money to the YMCA/YWCA/Salvation Army/Goodwill. Participate in your local funny-hatted masonic lodge, elks club, or church.
Quit trying to project your false morality at the barrel of a hired gun, for money that isn't even yours and instead belongs to others.
Seriously??
I really don't like you "shoot me in the face" analogy, a bit of a extreme stretch. I'm not sure if you are some loud mouth keyboard commando or the next Randy Weaver. Also do you ever reread what you write?
I volunteer with a lot of community service groups in my free-time, some of them I have even been the president. I also donate to charities that have the least amount of overhead because I want as much of my donation to be used for the cause, one of my favorites is the Salvation Army.
I still don't agree with your analogy.
So you are saying you are going to stop paying income tax and other taxes because you don't agree with how the money is being spent. I'm saying that because many of the items we have discussed in this thread are already being done with taxes collected. That being said you aren't paying taxes now, and you are going to get served papers, refuse to pay, the resist arrests and some law enforcement officer is going to shoot you because you are resisting arrest? Are you going to shoot them when come to your house to arrest you? Are you planning on doing this soon?
Cost-benefit analysis doesn't wash here for me in this instance. Because I have the patience to balance imprisonment versus potential freedom, and a voice to present my perspective to people capable of hearing it, there's no point in mindlessly throwing myself in a petulant rage at the machine. The gears are too sharp and too well lubed. I won't make a difference and I won't get any reward out of it.
And you're dodging the question.
What taxes are worth killing people over? And why are they worth killing people wealthy enough to pay, but not worth killing poor people who can't pay them?
What taxes are worth killing someone over?
If someone believes in their heart of hearts that XYZ tax is immoral and refuses to pay it, refuses to comply with it, refuses to allow their property or wealth be repossessed over the issue, and refuses to go to jail over noncompliance... they will be killed.
So. What taxes are you willing to hire other people to kill people for?
This question, Charby, is the next level of wookie-suit in right/libertarian politics.
Crazy right now. Perfectly rational in 10 years. And it becomes more rational from greater exposure. Just like the Paulbots.
I'm not dodging the question.
It pretty hard to live in the US and not ever pay a tax. No matter how high or how low a tax maybe someone somewhere will not like it and try not to pay any taxes. So there really isn't an answer you your question.
Also, I'm pretty sure people don't get killed for not paying taxes unless they present violence towards the person coming to arrest them or serve papers.
I challege you to live day to day, say a year and not use or consume anything that was tax payer funded in someway.
Consumption-based taxes are easy to either comply with, or avoid.
They also operate on a subscription basis, in most cases. Want to drive on the roads? Pay the license fee for your operator's permit, license your vehicle annually, and pay fuel excise taxes. Want to fly a plane in US-controlled airspace? Similar situation. Want to use city infrastructure to receive water to your residence? Pay per gallon, plus a general fee for infrastructure.
HUD, DOD, DHS, however... not so easy. You can't conscientiously object to taxes that fund these, because they aren't itemized or consumed on a per capita basis.
The majority just says "we want this" and point to everyone and compel them to pay for it by the threat of violence for noncompliance.
I don't object to taxes in theory.
I object to taxes that aren't levied on a per-capita basis. Or a consumption/receipt basis.
Every act of government should be subject to taxpayer sabotage by refusal to fund that project... by simply pursuing a different choice in commerce.
So what do you do about people who need constant mental health, or the adult special needs person with a IQ of an 8 year old. What about the survivors of a 8.5 earthquake?
Seriously??
I really don't like you "shoot me in the face" analogy, a bit of a extreme stretch.
I'm not dodging the question.
It pretty hard to live in the US and not ever pay a tax. No matter how high or how low a tax maybe someone somewhere will not like it and try not to pay any taxes. So there really isn't an answer you your question.
Also, I'm pretty sure people don't get killed for not paying taxes unless they present violence towards the person coming to arrest them or serve papers.
As to what taxes are you willing to hire other people to kill people for, the answer is all of them. If I have no problem hiring other people to conduct drone strikes and kill innocent civilians who just happen to be in proximity to a wanted target, or to pay G98 to fly around in a BUFF all those years training for a nuclear drop on the Soviet Union, what does some isolated tax protestor amount to?
As far as GTFO... that action requires capital. I lack the capital to do it.
if iirc some were earlier commenting about folks relocating their families with less, who were those folks again? :facepalm:
Moving from point A to point B isn't hard.
Moving from point A to [somewhere that doesn't exist other than the middle of the ocean currently] is a bit harder. ;/
ETA: I'm also not asking for government hand-outs to buy a sailboat or get to a libertarian-oriented State.
was that an answer? no wonder the revolution is dead
its toooooo haaaarrrrdddd
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
was that an answer? no wonder the revolution is dead
its toooooo haaaarrrrdddd
It's not tooooo harrrrrdddd.
It takes time and money.
Where do I get time and money, if not here? I'm adhering to your stupid rules so I don't get shot in the face by your enforcers, while saving money and biding my time.
It's not tooooo harrrrrdddd.
It takes time and money.
Where do I get time and money, if not here? I'm adhering to your stupid rules so I don't get shot in the face by your enforcers, while saving money and biding my time.
But I'm also talking to people to help them understand that while "no taxation without representation" is a good beginning, it's been exploited in the last 250 years and turned into a monster. It needs a correlary: no representation without taxation. And an exemption: it's okay to have no representation and have no taxation.
oh come on you are part of the masses now. 2 motorcycles? like my brother said to me. "you've gone from fighting the establishment to being the establishment!" the trappings are so tempting
Are we seriously going for the "if you are a libertarian, using any public service at all is hypocritical" argument?
Even worse, he went to college in my state (IIRC) and was subsidized by my tax dollars, as I am a lifelong tax-paying resident of Washington. Where is my return on this investment?
Those student loans... were they federally subsidized?
Are we seriously going for the "if you are a libertarian, using any public service at all is hypocritical" argument?
Are we seriously going for the "if you are a libertarian, using any public service at all is hypocritical" argument?
If you get frothing at the mouth indignant about how anyone who approves of any form of .gov doing anything just wants you to get shot in the face, and then use a bunch of .gov money in your personal life then yeah...
And you seriously see nothing wrong with this argument, even on a logical scale?
Just out of curiosity, Redhawk, Did you get any grants whatsoever for school?
I agree with the above, I'm not against these forms of assistance, I'm just against somebody who uses them getting irate All the time and acting like a keyboard commando any time taxation or government benefits comes up.
I'm not sure what the question here is. AZred is an anarchist, who states continually and in ever more melodramatic ways, how evil anyone who supports the existence of .gov (and the taxes that necessarily fund it) is. So if he turns around and takes that evil evil .gov blood money, it does seem to be definitionally hypocritical. Unless he considers himself as evil as he seems to think everyone else is, but based on his posting history I'd say harsh self criticism is not part of his lifestyle.
Back to the original topic. I could see US military or CBP using battle mechs on the border. Be a good place to try them out.
I'm not sure what the question here is. AZred is an anarchist, who states continually and in ever more melodramatic ways, how evil anyone who supports the existence of .gov (and the taxes that necessarily fund it) is. So if he turns around and takes that evil evil .gov blood money, it does seem to be definitionally hypocritical. Unless he considers himself as evil as he seems to think everyone else is, but based on his posting history I'd say harsh self criticism is not part of his lifestyle.
It's an uncomfortable question that makes people squirm whenever they say "there aught to be a law" or otherwise talk about how great government services are, when all those services derive their money from threat of force against their constituency.
The hypocrisy comes in harshly criticizing others, for doing what you yourself are doing. That's the definition of the word.
Do you really think that sort of inflamed rhetoric is really effective?
Obviously.
Or else we wouldn't be as socialist/statist as we are currently.
It's time to fight inflamed rhetoric with inflamed rhetoric, or irreverent jokes, or anything that demeans the argument of the other side.
All i'm saying is, it's pretty shitty to benefit from a federally guaranteed loan program, then LOL in glee when sequestration puts hardworking folks out of work, or on a greatly diminished income.
It's not his views that are wrong, it's the attitude that comes with them, and the general schadenfreude.
It's the melodramatic outrage combined with poor fact-checking. (ZOMG MRAPS... or HERE COME THE RC AIRCRAFT BANS! or OMG EMAIL TAXES)
FedGov didn't pay a penny on my loans. Yes, they had low interest rates due to FedGov guarantees of repayment if I defaulted, but FedGov would just keep coming after me if I defaulted (Soc.Sec. garnishment, tax refund garnishment, property seizure, shoot me in the face, whatever).
Because I didn't want to get shot in the face (and because it's the right thing to do), I paid off all my loans.
Fitz, I'll try to fact check better. However I do post here more under the assumption that it's a place to discuss current events, not a well-refereed archive of political theses with properly attributed primary sources.
Obviously.
Or else we wouldn't be as socialist/statist as we are currently.
It's time to fight inflamed rhetoric with inflamed rhetoric, or irreverent jokes, or anything that demeans the argument of the other side.
Then it's hypocritical for anyone to ever change the system. Let's just leave it as-is until it flushes itself down its own sewer system, and not say any bad things about that system, because it's hypocritical to do so.
Motivation for changing anything in the system comes from personal experience. Hypocrisy over a 15 year span is a rather tenuous charge, given how a person's philosophy changes from late teens to early 30's.
It WOULD be hypocritical, were I to fully abandon commitments I made while I held those old beliefs and stiff everyone for my student loans, or walk away from my mortgage, and so on. But honoring the past commitment, regardless of current philosophy, derails your charge of hypocrisy.
Balog, are you suggesting that because I pay these compulsory taxes against my will, I should not use the services the taxes provide me?
That is civilization?
If so, I don't want it.