New law targets illegal immigrants...

Message boards : Politics : New law targets illegal immigrants...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 676126 - Posted: 11 Nov 2007, 21:03:40 UTC - in response to Message 676105.  

One way to punish illegal immigrants is to sterilize them (except the ones who don't have any children anywhere), even if they are to be deported. In general they have too many children and have them at too young an age.

You appear to have some serious issues that even transcends a bad joke.

Get help.


You're the one who needs help. Everybody knows that people who have too many children are offending the ones who don't have so many or have none.

Everyone knows this do they?

I thought everyone knew that us people who have children get resentful of all those people who have never had children but still expect other people's children to subsidise them through their taxes when they get old.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 676126 · Report as offensive
Profile Fuzzy Hollynoodles
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 9659
Credit: 251,998
RAC: 0
Message 676158 - Posted: 11 Nov 2007, 21:43:32 UTC - in response to Message 676116.  

Never read so much nationalist crap like here on boards with rather international users.

Your big companies are allowed to spoil economies all over the world, your army is allowed to invade other countries - and poor people of other countries should be not allowed to work where jobs are offered?
Okay, if I were in charge, I would convince all employers 1) to pay no less than standard wages, and 2) to prefer local workers when employing.

OK, what happens when you cannot convince them of either? I mean, you cannot convince me of that, ever, unless you pay the difference yourself. What will you do when they simply ignore you because they couldn't care less what you think?

1) I will never pay anymore than what the market will bear, and if the person in front of me is poor at bargaining, they will make less than they would have. If they are good, they will make more. 2) I won't place any importance whatsoever on the geography of the workers, I will only hire those that can do the best job for me at the price the job is worth, no matter where they are.

But I also would barely punish the people who search a job to survive, I rather would punish those hard instead who prefer foreign workers to local workers when offering jobs & paying them substandard wages for their hard work.

Yep, Thorin is going to deal out the punishment. And that, once again, is why you are going to have to build a wall. Because as soon as you do, they will leave and come to where I am, where I will reward them for the behavior that you will punish.

Better build that wall high. Oh, and point the machine guns inward.






"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

ID: 676158 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 676187 - Posted: 11 Nov 2007, 22:38:02 UTC - in response to Message 676158.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2007, 22:38:49 UTC

Never read so much nationalist crap like here on boards with rather international users.

Your big companies are allowed to spoil economies all over the world, your army is allowed to invade other countries - and poor people of other countries should be not allowed to work where jobs are offered?
Okay, if I were in charge, I would convince all employers 1) to pay no less than standard wages, and 2) to prefer local workers when employing.

OK, what happens when you cannot convince them of either? I mean, you cannot convince me of that, ever, unless you pay the difference yourself. What will you do when they simply ignore you because they couldn't care less what you think?

1) I will never pay anymore than what the market will bear, and if the person in front of me is poor at bargaining, they will make less than they would have. If they are good, they will make more. 2) I won't place any importance whatsoever on the geography of the workers, I will only hire those that can do the best job for me at the price the job is worth, no matter where they are.

But I also would barely punish the people who search a job to survive, I rather would punish those hard instead who prefer foreign workers to local workers when offering jobs & paying them substandard wages for their hard work.

Yep, Thorin is going to deal out the punishment. And that, once again, is why you are going to have to build a wall. Because as soon as you do, they will leave and come to where I am, where I will reward them for the behavior that you will punish.

Better build that wall high. Oh, and point the machine guns inward.






Are these the "specters of Communism" which Marx has mentioned?
Account frozen...
ID: 676187 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 676195 - Posted: 11 Nov 2007, 22:54:25 UTC - in response to Message 675982.  

Now I know what your problem is...

"Ooooooh nooooooo, Mr. Bill!" ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 676195 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 676357 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 4:17:42 UTC - in response to Message 675899.  

Poverty isn't "created" Frenchie, it's the result of those unwilling to do what it takes to get ahead in life...like LEGALLY immigrating to another country in search of jobs.


I was waiting for the great neo-con comeback answer to raise it's lame little head.
Blame poverty on the poor.
What an insightful mind to fall back on that old line.
ID: 676357 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 676360 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 4:21:04 UTC
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 4:21:40 UTC

Hey Rush and SmashbrainR
Any thoughts on restrictions when it concerns human mobility and unrestrained movement of capital?

This ought to be good.
ID: 676360 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 676449 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 6:08:58 UTC - in response to Message 676357.  

Poverty isn't "created" Frenchie, it's the result of those unwilling to do what it takes to get ahead in life...like LEGALLY immigrating to another country in search of jobs.


I was waiting for the great neo-con comeback answer to raise it's lame little head.
Blame poverty on the poor.
What an insightful mind to fall back on that old line.


If you're satisfied with flipping burgers, that's nobody's fault but your own.

What's that? You've done better for yourself? Were you just lucky? Perhaps born the right color or with a silver spoon in your mouth?

Or did you just set higher goals for yourself and make sacrifices in order to achieve those goals?


ID: 676449 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 676451 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 6:12:40 UTC - in response to Message 676360.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 6:13:01 UTC

Hey Rush and SmashbrainR
Any thoughts on restrictions when it concerns human mobility and unrestrained movement of capital?

This ought to be good.


I don't have any problems with what a person does with their legally earned income. You're the one who doesn't see a difference between those who contribute to society and common criminals.


ID: 676451 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51470
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 676455 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 6:25:26 UTC - in response to Message 676126.  


I thought everyone knew that us people who have children get resentful of all those people who have never had children but still expect other people's children to subsidise them through their taxes when they get old.


What about another side to that coin....
I am single, no children. But I still have to pay to support the public school systems every year when I pay my property taxes!
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 676455 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 676467 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 7:28:07 UTC - in response to Message 676360.  

Hey Rush and SmashbrainR
Any thoughts on restrictions when it concerns human mobility and unrestrained movement of capital?

This ought to be good.

What do you mean? I would remove all tariffs. Remove all protectionism. There would generally be no restraint on movement or people or capital. None. Free trade would mean exactly that, free trade. There would not be documents that run into the thousands of pages to say this "trade with whoever you want, at whatever price you agree to."
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 676467 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 676470 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 7:42:19 UTC - in response to Message 675675.  

The conversation also went on to the actions being taken recently by the international investor class.

Doesn't it seem strange to everyone that governments are enforcing, with ever increasing hysteria, national borders while at the same time lecturing the working class about the need to eliminate borders when it comes to economics?

What purpose is being served by enforcing the borders in the case of human mobility while removing restrictions on the movement of capital?

Well, one example would be in the case of places that have socialized medicine, it's to prevent the system from being bankrupted. Most simply because that system isn't free.

If one follows this to the obvious conclusion, we find that it appears that the investor class, or capitalists, seem to be creating a situation where humans are trapped in regions of low wage earnings and capital is free to move into that same region to exploit the wage situation.

Yay, the "investor class" now equals "capitalists." How incisive. And yes, any rational concern is always looking to cut costs, everywhere. On labor, materials, expenses, everything. Giving people who otherwise would not have jobs is part of that process. It helps raise the standard of living for those who need the income, and it raises the standard of living in the original market by lowering costs and bringing more goods and services to a greater number of people.

I believe the uproar over illegal immigrants is not the real story, rather, it's a means of gathering support from the masses in containing people inside the low wages regions created by the capitalists.

Heh heh.

Stronger enforcement of borders is simply a means of reducing mobility from within created zones of impoverishment.

I would argue that everyone shouldn't get angry at those trying to escape poverty but focus your attention and anger on those creating it.

It's not possible to "create poverty," it's only possible to create wealth. If you think that is so easy, then you should be doing it. The UAW should be doing it and selling cars and really sticking it to GM and BMW. All those poor people in the DPRK should just be creating wealth because jeebusknows they've got more poverty than they could ever hope for.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 676470 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 676473 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 7:56:28 UTC - in response to Message 676449.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 7:58:22 UTC

did you just set higher goals for yourself and make sacrifices in order to achieve those goals?

Like avoiding military service and passing out food stamps for a living... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 676473 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 676474 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 7:58:28 UTC - in response to Message 676470.  


Well, one example would be in the case of places that have socialized medicine, it's to prevent the system from being bankrupted. Most simply because that system isn't free.


? You feel border enforcement on human movement will protect healthcare?

How does that work if capital is permitted to flow wherever it desires?
Don't you think the money guys will just up and move their capital?

As for socialized healthcare not being free...who ever claimed it was?
Nothing is free. The healthcare must be paid for, just as everything else.
The difference being, costs are socialized (shared by all for the benefit of all) not placed on the individual.

Life is too valuable to be left to the marketplace and it's decisions based on ability to pay.



ID: 676474 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 676479 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 8:05:54 UTC - in response to Message 676470.  


It's not possible to "create poverty," it's only possible to create wealth.


You truly believe this?
Try telling this to the countries shackled by IMF policies.
By selling off all public assets and siphoning the profits out of countries, poverty IS CREATED.
I don't need some speel about the impossibility of creating a negative because it is possible to create a vacuum where all wealth is removed by the greed of the controllers of the IMF and World Bank.




ID: 676479 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 676496 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 8:42:55 UTC - in response to Message 676474.  

You feel border enforcement on human movement will protect healthcare?

No, I think if you remove border restrictions that will be the end of socialized anything. The countries involved can't afford it.

How does that work if capital is permitted to flow wherever it desires?
Don't you think the money guys will just up and move their capital?

Who cares? It's theirs, not yours, and they do it now. As do I.

And I told you what happens, it raises the standard of living in both places by giving jobs to people who otherwise would not have them and by making more goods and services available to more people.

As for socialized healthcare not being free...who ever claimed it was?
Nothing is free. The healthcare must be paid for, just as everything else.
The difference being, costs are socialized (shared by all for the benefit of all) not placed on the individual.

The individual pays every penny of those costs. 100%. Just not directly. And open your eyes, people claim that socialized medicine is "free" all the time.

Life is too valuable to be left to the marketplace and it's decisions based on ability to pay.

Not because you say so.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 676496 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 676500 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 8:48:05 UTC - in response to Message 676479.  

You truly believe this?
Try telling this to the countries shackled by IMF policies.

No, because if they wanted hard currency loans, they are subject to the rules of those who are willing to lend it to them.

If they didn't want to borrow under such restrictions, they should have just created all the wealth they needed and dispensed with the IMF all together. Right?

Why didn't they do that? Why didn't they just create this wealth?

By selling off all public assets and siphoning the profits out of countries, poverty IS CREATED.
I don't need some speel about the impossibility of creating a negative because it is possible to create a vacuum where all wealth is removed by the greed of the controllers of the IMF and World Bank.

Well, then maybe the gov'ts in question should have just created wealth instead of borrowing money. What were they waiting for?
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 676500 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 676514 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 9:42:48 UTC - in response to Message 676470.  

The conversation also went on to the actions being taken recently by the international investor class.

Doesn't it seem strange to everyone that governments are enforcing, with ever increasing hysteria, national borders while at the same time lecturing the working class about the need to eliminate borders when it comes to economics?

What purpose is being served by enforcing the borders in the case of human mobility while removing restrictions on the movement of capital?

Well, one example would be in the case of places that have socialized medicine, it's to prevent the system from being bankrupted. Most simply because that system isn't free.

If one follows this to the obvious conclusion, we find that it appears that the investor class, or capitalists, seem to be creating a situation where humans are trapped in regions of low wage earnings and capital is free to move into that same region to exploit the wage situation.

Yay, the "investor class" now equals "capitalists." How incisive. And yes, any rational concern is always looking to cut costs, everywhere. On labor, materials, expenses, everything. Giving people who otherwise would not have jobs is part of that process. It helps raise the standard of living for those who need the income, and it raises the standard of living in the original market by lowering costs and bringing more goods and services to a greater number of people.

I believe the uproar over illegal immigrants is not the real story, rather, it's a means of gathering support from the masses in containing people inside the low wages regions created by the capitalists.

Heh heh.

Stronger enforcement of borders is simply a means of reducing mobility from within created zones of impoverishment.

I would argue that everyone shouldn't get angry at those trying to escape poverty but focus your attention and anger on those creating it.

It's not possible to "create poverty," it's only possible to create wealth. If you think that is so easy, then you should be doing it. The UAW should be doing it and selling cars and really sticking it to GM and BMW. All those poor people in the DPRK should just be creating wealth because jeebusknows they've got more poverty than they could ever hope for.

They want to cut costs? Why don't they begin in the top levels, like CEOs or something?
Sure it IS possible to create poverty, actually those who create wealth for a few at the costs of others do make those others poor.

Do you really believe the people in Africa and North Korea have chosen to starve? Do you really believe the majority of Indians chose to live of less than a Dollar per day while some few there don't know which place they shall put their millions? Do you really think Mexican people leave their families and maybe even their tiny fields heading for the States just for the adventure of it? They have no choice! It's either leaving the family and go where jobs are offered and work there (even illegally) or watch their beloved ones starve while starving themselves. Capitalism, the system you are so adoring, made them poor enough to take such desperate measures.
Do you really think that people take up temp jobs or other jobs with substandard wages because they agree with them? They take them because THEY DO HAVE NO CHOICE! I know enough engineers and people with master degrees - even with excellent certificates - who work in temp companies or as burger-flippers or as waiters, just to have a job, just to not live on welfare, because THERE IS no job according to their qualifications here for them.
Account frozen...
ID: 676514 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 676518 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 9:55:23 UTC - in response to Message 676500.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 9:56:40 UTC

You truly believe this?
Try telling this to the countries shackled by IMF policies.

No, because if they wanted hard currency loans, they are subject to the rules of those who are willing to lend it to them.

If they didn't want to borrow under such restrictions, they should have just created all the wealth they needed and dispensed with the IMF all together. Right?

Why didn't they do that? Why didn't they just create this wealth?

By selling off all public assets and siphoning the profits out of countries, poverty IS CREATED.
I don't need some speel about the impossibility of creating a negative because it is possible to create a vacuum where all wealth is removed by the greed of the controllers of the IMF and World Bank.

Well, then maybe the gov'ts in question should have just created wealth instead of borrowing money. What were they waiting for?
Oh are you really that blind? The market is not so free as you claim it is. Just ask yourself, who decides which goods are imported? The customers? No. And who made it impossible to those countries to live independently? It was the Western Economy which made them be dependent on exporting only a few goods and then stopped buying just these goods when the countries wanted to put up their own industry (with borrowed money) besides these mono-cultures. It's not the gov'ts of these countries who made their people poor. It's the Global Capitalism.

Account frozen...
ID: 676518 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 676522 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 10:06:49 UTC - in response to Message 676514.  

They want to cut costs? Why don't they begin in the top levels, like CEOs or something?

Because you could divide the entire salary and benefit package of the highest paid 1000 people at a place like GM and everyone else would get a couple of hundred bucks in one paycheck, once. Of course, that wouldn't solve even one problem, wouldn't make the company more competitive, wouldn't pay down debt or change market conditions, or anything else.

It would, however, destroy the company. So, for in exchange for a one-time payment of a few hundred bucks, the people who got paid that get to lose their jobs. Few if any of them are going to make that trade.

Sure it IS possible to create poverty, actually those who create wealth for a few at the costs of others do make those others poor.

Man, then Oprah and Michael Moore must be REALLY REALLY REALLY skrewing people hard. I mean, they make millions more than most CEOs. They must be creating poverty left and right, taking their money right out of the mouths of the poor.

Do you really believe the people in Africa and North Korea have chosen to starve?

Well, you and Waite seem to think that wealth is created out of whole cloth. Yet they aren't doing it. Those out of work UAW workers aren't doing it either. If I were them, I would just choose to create wealth so I could spend it.

I mean, it's just that easy, right?

Do you really believe the majority of Indians chose to live of less than a Dollar per day while some few there don't know which place they shall put their millions?

I think that some people are capable of earning substantially more than others. And that those others will not support them out of hand. Michael Moore for example. Oprah. Babs Streisand. These are exceedingly rich people that will not do as you would have them do.

Do you really think Mexican people leave their families and maybe even their tiny fields heading for the States just for the adventure of it? They have no choice! It's either leaving the family and go where jobs are offered and work there (even illegally) or watch their beloved ones starve while starving themselves.

I think these people seek to make better lives for themselves and it is so miserable where they live that they are smart to leave and try to make a better life for themselves. More power to them. Now, if Oprah and Moore would just quit skrewing them so badly, maybe they'd have a chance.

Capitalism, the system you are so adoring, made them poor enough to take such desperate measures.

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever seen you say. "Capitalism," as you use it there, is the system they are coming to, to find jobs to make their lives better. They are leaving the insanely socialistic Mexico because the socialistic system there destroys wealth. You should be thrilled with that place. All the laws and rules and gov't meddling you could ever want.

And yet, they come here, in the face of overwhelming odds, to the land of capitalism. No one is fighting to get into the DPRK or Cuba. Well, except Moore, but he hasn't moved down there either.

Do you really think that people take up temp jobs or other jobs with substandard wages because they agree with them? They take them because THEY DO HAVE NO CHOICE! I know enough engineers and people with master degrees - even with excellent certificates - who work in temp companies or as burger-flippers or as waiters, just to have a job, just to not live on welfare, because THERE IS no job according to their qualifications here for them.

Then provide it for them Thorin. If you think someone has a right to a job at someone else's expense, then you should be providing it for them. If you think that because someone has some degree that they have a right to a job, what happens when others who disagree with you will not provide those jobs? I mean, you won't, so why should they? Because you think they should?

Don't hold your breath, they don't care what you think.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 676522 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 676523 - Posted: 12 Nov 2007, 10:12:34 UTC - in response to Message 676522.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2007, 10:14:05 UTC

"Capitalism," as you use it there, is the system they are coming to, to find jobs to make their lives better.

But when they get here, they find out that it's nothing but a sham... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 676523 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : New law targets illegal immigrants...


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.