Illegals

[Art Eatman]

I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:

It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs.  After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right?  Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?

Just a thought to offer those who are supportive of having all the illegals be accepted as good guys...

, Art

[Guest]

I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:

It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs.  After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right?  Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?

...

No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.

[InfidelSerf]

Good point Art,
That and when/if we offer amnesty. They certainly won't be ok with the lower wages.  Since as a citizen they will get full protection under the law.
They will demand higherwages.  So what is the advantage to "worker program"??

[Dannyboy]

I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:

It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs.  After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right?  Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?

...

No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.

There's nothing wrong with outsourcing to those who believe in a free market.  Unfortunately, there's a whole bunch of people that believe in things like "fair" trade instead of free trade.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I agree with mercedez.  There's nothing wrong with outsourcing, nor with Mexicans earning an income here.

But one of the big arguments against outsourcing is that it's bad for national security to ship all of our manufacturing and industrial interests overseas.  If so, wouldn't it be prudent to "outsource" these jobs to Mexicans living here, rather than to Chinese or Indians overseas?  This way all of the jobs and factories and such-like remain here on our own soil.


You're right, though, about thinking being dangerous.  I used to beleive all the ballyhoo about illegal immigration being bad.  Then I thought about it some.  Then some more.  Now I don't really have a problem with immigrants, legal or otherwise.   But that's a subject for another discussion...

[garyk/nm]

I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:

It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs.  After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right?  Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?

...

No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.

I guess that depends on your point of view. To capitalists, it makes sense. To the guy who lost his job to someone outside the country, not so much. Kinda hard to take care of hearth and home, and pursue a new skillset, when you have no income.

[Guest]

I agree with mercedez.  There's nothing wrong with outsourcing, nor with Mexicans earning an income here.

But one of the big arguments against outsourcing is that it's bad for national security...

As an anarchist, I don't care about that either. The state makes me less safe, not more. Without the state how would some stranger thousands of miles away get the idea to harm me?

[Guest]

I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:

It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs.  After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right?  Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?

...

No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.

I guess that depends on your point of view. To capitalists, it makes sense. To the guy who lost his job to someone outside the country, not so much. ....

IOW, a "communist".

[The Rabbi]

I got to thinking, which is always dangerous:

It seems to me that if illegals are taking jobs from U.S. citizens because they will work for lower wages, that's importing people to out-source jobs.  After all, "out-sourcing" refers to jobs leaving US citizens and going to foreign laborers, right?  Does it really matter if the foreign laborers are in Bangladesh instead of Los Angeles?

...

No, but since there is nothing wrong with outsourcing, the point is moot.

I guess that depends on your point of view. To capitalists, it makes sense. To the guy who lost his job to someone outside the country, not so much. Kinda hard to take care of hearth and home, and pursue a new skillset, when you have no income.

If someone's job is in jeopardy because his employer can hire an illiterate Mexican to do the same work for lots less money then I think it is the worker who has the problem, not the country.

I will mention that illegals here do live someplace and pay rent.  They do eat here and buy food, paying taxes along the way.  They do buy things that the worker in Bangladesh does not.
I will also mention that the U.S. is a net IMPORTER of jobs, not exporter.

[Harold Tuttle]

once they become a commodity that is open

the unions will gather

[Art Eatman]

mercedesrules, I don't think anarchy would have worked all that well for you or us, from, say, 1939 through 1989.

The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies.  Like a lot of stuff, it looks good on paper...

, Art

[The Rabbi]

mercedesrules, I don't think anarchy would have worked all that well for you or us, from, say, 1939 through 1989.

The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies.  Like a lot of stuff, it looks good on paper...

, Art

Reminds me of a line in a book by Wesley Clark on the Bosnian War.  He had to consult with and get permission from all the defense chiefs in NATO before any major undertaking.  The worst was (of course) the French chief of defense.  When Clark presented an idea for one operation the Frenchman's reply was "that sounds good in practice, but will it work in theory?"  Clark waited for signs of irony.
I dont understand anarchy as a solution to much, especially immigration.

[Perd Hapley]

I dont understand anarchy as a solution to much, especially immigration.

You see, Rabbi, without states, everyone would be equally oppressed by stronger people, so there would be little point in moving elsewhere.  Besides, it's dangerous to travel when as soon as you enter a different part of the world, any local can accuse you of violating his rights, at which point no one else in that community will respect your rights and you will be robbed, raped and/or murdered in short order.  (At least that's the picture of anarchy that I get from mercedesrules.)

This is why we should not stop anyone from coming in.  That way, we will soon become another France and will be just as burdened by socialism as they are.  Let's just blend into the rest of the socialist states of the world.

[Guest]

Without the state how would some stranger thousands of miles away get the idea to harm me?

Yeah, because the only reason muslim radicals want to enslave the planet is because you live under an American flag.  If it werent for that, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take thier aims of "one world under allah" elsewhere and leave you to your anarchy.  Submission to allah wouldn't pertain to you at that point.

Must be comforting to be so simple and naive.

[Winston Smith]

everyone would be equally oppressed by stronger people, so there would be little point in moving elsewhere.  Besides, it's dangerous to travel when as soon as you enter a different part of the world, any local can accuse you of violating his rights, at which point no one else in that community will respect your rights and you will be robbed, raped and/or murdered in short order.

Umm. That sounds more like the current system to me. AKA statism.

Illegal immigrants are people. The first whites here, the ones who founded this country, were "illegal" immigrants to this nation. Did the American Indians grant us amnesty? Did the mexicans when we took the southwest?

Also maybe the problem is more overpriced goods than too-high wages. And where do the overpriced goods come from? too high wages, paid so that individuals can buy overpriced goods. I'm not complaining because some people are coming along and make a living off our great hot-air filled economy.


Edit:

oh and

as you enter a different part of the world ... no one else in that community will respect your rights

yeah pretty much what is going on with the illegal immigrants.

[Perd Hapley]

Umm. That sounds more like the current system to me. AKA statism.

How?  Are you also an anarchist?  Edited to add; that is not an insult, it is a sincere question, in context of mercedesrules's comments.

Illegal immigrants are people.

Yes, most criminals are.  

The first whites here, the ones who founded this country, were "illegal" immigrants to this nation. Did the American Indians grant us amnesty? Did the mexicans when we took the southwest?

The American Indians had laws about who came into their territory and how?  I've never heard of that.  Which laws did the colonists break by the act of settling here?  And for what it's worth, the Indians didn't have "countries," they had tribes living in villages and whatever hunting grounds they had taken by warfare.  And no, Mexico ceded the southwest by treaty, so no amnesty could possible apply there.

[Perd Hapley]

oh and

as you enter a different part of the world ... no one else in that community will respect your rights

yeah pretty much what is going on with the illegal immigrants.

Which of their rights are being violated?

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand anarchy as a solution to much, especially immigration.

You see, Rabbi, without states, everyone would be equally oppressed by stronger people, so there would be little point in moving elsewhere.

Sounds like socialized medicine. Everyone gets the same level of care, namely lousy.  I vote for inquality every time.

[Guest]

Your dad sounds like a cool guy

Winston Smith wrote:
oh and

as you enter a different part of the world ... no one else in that community will respect your rights

yeah pretty much what is going on with the illegal immigrants.

All except the part about rights,  show up in MY country ILLEGALY, and you don't have rights to *expletive deleted*it.  Miranda rights perhaps.....

Winston, you are falling for the whole PC "Illegal Imigrant" label.  These are not Immigrants, they are invaders, here illegally that, at BEST, just want to make money and send it back to mexico (and have no intention of assimilating and becoming Americans), and at worst think that they somehow have claim to OUR lands (read; aztlan)

*** the aztlan concept being utter *expletive deleted*it, because if you are somehow decended from the original inhabitants of this landmass, why are you speaking spanish, paco?

[Guest]

and to dig the Aztlan thing even deeper, look at the history of the Aztecs.  They were just a bunch of thugs that hired out as mercs to other neighboring tribes, who eventually figured out it was that much easier to kill off their employers and be their own bosses.  They don't even have any "moral" claim to the landmass they called home half a millennium ago

[Winston Smith]

All except the part about rights,  show up in MY country ILLEGALY, and you don't have rights to *expletive deleted*it.  Miranda rights perhaps.....

In my view rights are inherent, not government given.

How?  Are you also an anarchist?  Edited to add; that is not an insult, it is a sincere question, in context of mercedesrules's comments.

No. I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-ist

The American Indians had laws about who came into their territory and how?

I guess not, but I'm pretty sure that smallpox blankets broke some sort of law. Along with, you know the trail of tears, etcetera.  And if it didn't I guess it didn't occur to the savages that people would want to do that sort of thing to them.

OUR lands

What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.

Illegal immigrants are people.

Yes, most criminals are.

Laws make criminals.

Which of their rights are being violated?

Life, liberty. and the pursuit of hapiness.

I dont know how many of you saw the rallies on that day without immigrants, but I stood at 7th Street and Market. here in san francisco, just a block from City Hall, and watched thousands of people protesting, just wanting to make burritos for overpaid white guys like me. I used to be firmly against. "Set .50 cals up on the wall we should build!" That's what I said.

And then I saw that these were people. What makes me better than them? What makes me entitled to live here in this land of milk and honey and not them? Who am I to exclude them? They just want what I want.

And that fifth column bullshit is just that. I'm sure a small percentage of them want to overthrow the government, but look to most poor people in general. Even those on welfare hate the government.

I'm not better than these people because of the place that they are born. Luckier maybe.

[Guest]

Life aint fair, then you die.  

Get in line, take a number, Pedro.

come here legally, learn OUR language (the one spoken within the borders that make up OUR country), assimilate!  enrich American culture and society!

 I welcome any LEGAL immigrant with open arms.  If these poor, oppressed hardworking folks just want to make a life for themselves (at sub minimum wage), do it in MEXICO.  If they are so hardworking and willing to do *expletive deleted*it jobs, how about fixing thier own crappy county? ( Speaking of the MexGov )

Laws make criminals.

Explain to me how that isn't essentially anarchy..

In my view rights are inherent, not government given.

So much for the whole concept of law and order.  come one, come all,  Enjoy your rights on our economy's tab...
Don't bother yourselves with following OUR laws, they're all quite superflous really.

What makes it ours? That were here? Well so are they. 12 million of them.

OURS, because we've managed to take and keep them.

I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-ist

I couldn't agree with you more, so long as the .gov leaves productive,taxpaying CITIZENS the hell alone.  I don't apply that to invaders.

[Perd Hapley]

In my view rights are inherent, not government given.

I agree; in fact I am arguing for that in another thread here.  However, I don't know where you get the idea that you have a right to go to any country at any time and take up residence and work.  Do you believe that all such laws should be repealed?

Winston, I am glad that you now understand that illegals are people, but the rest of us have understood that from the beginning.  That is why we expect them to follow our law.  If they were animals, we might not expect so much of them.  Do you really think our immigration laws are based on the notion that we are better than other people?  Look to France or Japan for that kind of nonsense, but American citizenship does not have that kind of racial basis.  

No. I'm a leave me and other people the hell alone-ist

Me too, and I want Mexicans to leave my country alone, unless they wish to enter legally and be a benefit to my country.

The American Indians had laws about who came into their territory and how?

I guess not,

So you were wrong to say that the British/American colonists were illegal immigrants?  

And if it didn't I guess it didn't occur to the savages that people would want to do that sort of thing to them.

Yeah, they probably only expected the warfare and slavery that was a part of their history.  

What makes it ours? That were here?

Try this.  We built a nation here, the best and freest the world has ever known.  Had we not taken the southwest, it would be in as big a mess as the rest of Mexico.  Under US law, though, it has flourished.

Which of their rights are being violated?

Life, liberty. and the pursuit of hapiness.

Wait, we're killing them now?  As for liberty, who's forcing them into anything?  They are breaking our law of their own free will.  They have the right to enter our country to pursue happiness?  Please show us where the signers of the Declaration said that laws on immigration contradicted that right.

[Guest]

mercedesrules, I don't think anarchy would have worked all that well for you or us, from, say, 1939 through 1989.

The trouble with being an anarchist is that you tend to run short of allies....

....like Stalin, Saddam and Osama...

... it looks good on paper...

For you, that's a breakthrough statement!

[Guest]

Without the state how would some stranger thousands of miles away get the idea to harm me?

Yeah, because the only reason muslim radicals want to enslave the planet is because you live under an American flag.  If it werent for that, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take thier aims of "one world under allah" elsewhere and leave you to your anarchy.  Submission to allah wouldn't pertain to you at that point.

Must be comforting to be so simple and naive.

Must be terrifying to fear an ethereal (US agents can hardly find them) subset of a mainstream religious group thousands of miles and an ocean away. I see you've fully accepted the state's demonization of Muslims. What happened to "Never again!"?

 Also, The US administration has said many times it wants the whole world democratized. What is the difference between one side wanting everyone to accept their way and the other side doing so?

 If you haven't finally seen that 9/11 was a retaliation for the West's treatment of the Middle East I guess I don't really know what to say.