Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[Soxbadger]

It didn't work because the underlying problem, quotas imposed to keep the dirty races out that were too strict to meet demand for work, was not dealt with.

 

Dont worry Balta, SS2k is getting me that information right now.

 

He implied that he could show me where the US changed immigration restrictions to pre-1924 levels and offered amnesty, failing.

 

So Im just waiting for him, because it should be easy to find, unless he doesnt have the proof...

[Soxbadger]

The reason is that there is no reason not to break the law. Wait it out long enough, and you get what you want.

 

Man you are just killing your own argument.

 

So if the law doesnt work and there is no incentive to follow the law, should you:

 

A) Blindly keep believing the law will work.

 

B) Change the law.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It.doesn't.work.

 

Read some history.

 

Not when you don't do anything to fix your broken system that led to the problem in the first place.

[StrangeSox]

The reason is that there is no reason not to break the law. Wait it out long enough, and you get what you want.

 

Except the constant fear of deportation, working in a shadow economy with no legal recourse for abuses, etc. etc.

[EvilMonkey]

How do I plan for paying for it?

 

By collecting taxes from people that previously were getting benefits and not paying taxes.

 

Right now they are in the US, getting services, costing money, and many of them pay $0. How would it be a bad thing if they are in the US, getting services, costing money and paying something?

What makes you thik they will have a high enough income to actually end up PAYING anything? The people working in the shadow economy make crap, which is why they rely so heavily on the benefits. If they still making crap, they will still be a drain.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

What makes you thik they will have a high enough income to actually end up PAYING anything? The people working in the shadow economy make crap, which is why they rely so heavily on the benefits. If they still making crap, they will still be a drain.

except for all of those state and local taxes and sales taxes and property taxes (rolled into rent) and gas taxes and liquor taxes and....

[Cknolls]

except for all of those state and local taxes and sales taxes and property taxes (rolled into rent) and gas taxes and liquor taxes and....

 

And free school breakfast and lunch and surely within a few years dinner. And busing. And spare me he property tax bulls***.

[Soxbadger]

What makes you thik they will have a high enough income to actually end up PAYING anything? The people working in the shadow economy make crap, which is why they rely so heavily on the benefits. If they still making crap, they will still be a drain.

 

Andrew Carnegie, immigrant.

 

What makes you think that immigrants wont make up lower, middle and upper class. US history is filled with immigrant success stories.

 

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/08...mmigrants/1.htm

 

 

[Quin]

Andrew Carnegie, immigrant.

What makes you think that immigrants wont make up lower, middle and upper class. US history is filled with immigrant success stories.

 

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/08...mmigrants/1.htm

 

[kapkomet]

Man you are just killing your own argument.

 

So if the law doesnt work and there is no incentive to follow the law, should you:

 

A) Blindly keep believing the law will work.

 

B) Change the law.

 

Then why practice law, if all you want to do is not follow it? Hypocrite.

[Soxbadger]

Then why practice law, if all you want to do is not follow it? Hypocrite.

 

 

Because you are allowed to argue for change of law.

 

Part of being a lawyer is advocating for the change of unjust laws.

 

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Rules of Ethics

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/narr/IL_NARR_3.HTM

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/code/...DE.HTM#Rule_3.1

 

IRPC 3.1 is identical to MR 3.1. The rule prohibits a lawyer from bringing or defending a lawsuit unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

 

So what you meant to say is that I am following ethical guidelines.

 

Just like Jenks can argue that abortion laws should be changed, I can argue that immigration laws should be changed.

 

What type of system do you think we live in, where lawyers cant argue that a law is unjust?

 

Have you never heard of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade?

 

Or are you just unfamiliar with the term hypocrite, and think that it means "being consistent".

Edited June 19, 2012 by Soxbadger

[southsideirish71]

Andrew Carnegie, immigrant.

 

What makes you think that immigrants wont make up lower, middle and upper class. US history is filled with immigrant success stories.

 

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/08...mmigrants/1.htm

 

I am an immigrant. Legal mind you. My parents never took assistance, worked multiple jobs and pushed education. We lived within our means. Now my relatives would of loved to come here as well. But they played by the rules. So I have no compassion for those who decided to violate the rules to get here. How are they more important than my family, who are equally as poor.

[Soxbadger]

I am an immigrant. Legal mind you. My parents never took assistance, worked multiple jobs and pushed education. We lived within our means. Now my relatives would of loved to come here as well. But they played by the rules. So I have no compassion for those who decided to violate the rules to get here. How are they more important than my family, who are equally as poor.

 

They arent.

 

I want to change the law so your family can come here too if they would like.

 

And had any of your family come here illegally, I would have supported their right to a better life as well.

 

(edit)

 

Do you think its fair that some of your family arbitrarily were let in, while others were left behind? Dont you think it would have been more fair if they all could have had the same opportunity?

Edited June 19, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Quin]

Because you are allowed to argue for change of law.

 

Part of being a lawyer is advocating for the change of unjust laws.

 

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Rules of Ethics

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/narr/IL_NARR_3.HTM

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/code/...DE.HTM#Rule_3.1

 

IRPC 3.1 is identical to MR 3.1. The rule prohibits a lawyer from bringing or defending a lawsuit unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

 

So what you meant to say is that I am following ethical guidelines.

 

Just like Jenks can argue that abortion laws should be changed, I can argue that immigration laws should be changed.

 

What type of system do you think we live in, where lawyers cant argue that a law is unjust?

 

Have you never heard of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade?

 

Or are you just unfamiliar with the term hypocrite, and think that it means "being consistent".

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Andrew Carnegie, immigrant.

 

What makes you think that immigrants wont make up lower, middle and upper class. US history is filled with immigrant success stories.

 

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/08...mmigrants/1.htm

IMMIGRANTS can. Illegal immigrants will have a much harder time. Big difference. Take that farm worker and make him legal. He was paying the sales taxes and so on before, so no now revenue there. And his income is not going to be that of Carnegie, so I don't see any added cashflow to the tax coffers, just an easier route to the free benies thanks to amnesty. nice try. Nobody here ever said LEGAL immigration was a bad thing.

[southsideirish71]

They arent.

 

I want to change the law so your family can come here to if they would like.

 

And had any of your family come here illegally, I would have supported their right to a better life as well.

 

So what you want is complete open borders, no limits. So how exactly does that work with a limited resource set. Because other countries, with work permits don't plant 11 million foreign workers plus indefinitely. It's not sustainable.

[EvilMonkey]

So what you want is complete open borders, no limits. So how exactly does that work with a limited resource set. Because other countries, with work permits don't plant 11 million foreign workers plus indefinitely. It's not sustainable.

Sure it is, just like social security!!!!!!!

[southsideirish71]

Do you think its fair that some of your family arbitrarily were let in, while others were left behind? Dont you think it would have been more fair if they all could have had the same opportunity?

 

Well if they did a few tours in Vietnam Like my father, then sure. But maybe he would of been better of buying a shovel instead of being n that s***hole.

[Soxbadger]

IMMIGRANTS can. Illegal immigrants will have a much harder time. Big difference. Take that farm worker and make him legal. He was paying the sales taxes and so on before, so no now revenue there. And his income is not going to be that of Carnegie, so I don't see any added cashflow to the tax coffers, just an easier route to the free benies thanks to amnesty. nice try. Nobody here ever said LEGAL immigration was a bad thing.

 

 

Right which is why you need to make all immigrants LEGAL immigrants.

 

Carnegie immigrated to the US pre-1924, his family didnt need to apply, they just needed to show up. So that is the point, you are keeping potential Carnegies out of the country by denying immigration. Carnegie's family was dirt poor and likely would not have been able to immigrate under today's rules.

 

 

 

So what you want is complete open borders, no limits. So how exactly does that work with a limited resource set. Because other countries, with work permits don't plant 11 million foreign workers plus indefinitely. It's not sustainable.

 

It is not sustainable forever, but it is sustainable for now. Prior to 1924 you had to pay 50 cents and not be sick. With inflation that is no where near $500-$1,000 which would be a pretty reasonable sum to immigrate for. And sure perhaps in the future we will run out of space, America truly wont have room. But that is not today, and until that day it is my belief we let everyone who wants in.

 

 

Sure it is, just like social security!!!!!!!

 

Historically the times the US has the highest immigration have coincided with the best US economies.

 

The times when the US has the highest restrictions on immigration have been the worst.

 

But who is reading history books these days, not me!

[southsideirish71]

It is not sustainable forever, but it is sustainable for now. Prior to 1924 you had to pay 50 cents and not be sick. With inflation that is no where near $500-$1,000 which would be a pretty reasonable sum to immigrate for. And sure perhaps in the future we will run out of space, America truly wont have room. But that is not today, and until that day it is my belief we let everyone who wants

 

It's not sustainable. What makes the undocumented worker attractive to business is the lack of benefits and the lack of a real wage. Are we going to give them a minimum wage? So let's add a few million Pakistan/Indian skilled workers. How do you think that is going to play with American citizens and their job seeing status. Maybe we bring 10 to 15 million refugees from Africa. So what jobs are they getting again.

 

[BigSqwert]

It's not sustainable. What makes the undocumented worker attractive to business is the lack of benefits and the lack of a real wage. Are we going to give them a minimum wage? So let's add a few million Pakistan/Indian skilled workers. How do you think that is going to play with American citizens and their job seeing status. Maybe we bring 10 to 15 million refugees from Africa. So what jobs are they getting again.

They won't come if there aren't jobs for them.

[southsideirish71]

They won't come if there aren't jobs for them.

 

Free health care and education and government aid. You open up the doors and everyone will be here. It's better than where they are.

[Soxbadger]

It's not sustainable. What makes the undocumented worker attractive to business is the lack of benefits and the lack of a real wage. Are we going to give them a minimum wage? So let's add a few million Pakistan/Indian skilled workers. How do you think that is going to play with American citizens and their job seeing status. Maybe we bring 10 to 15 million refugees from Africa. So what jobs are they getting again.

 

Right these are the real concerns, isolationist fears, strangle competition before it starts.

 

Minimum wage is a sacred cow, no one is touching that even though its a significant problem and our attitude has to be adjusted. Back before globalization minimum wage in a country could work, but now when you can simply move the factory when labor gets to expensive, you have to make a hard decision, do you lower minimum wage to compete worldwide, or do we cling to the idea of American exceptionalism. (this is an argument for another day)

 

How do I think it will play with Americans who want to protect their job against someone who is more hungry and will harder?

 

Work harder. I hate barriers of entry, I despise them. Barriers of entry are great when you are part of the exclusive club, "lets make passing the bar harder that way there are less lawyers and we can all make more money and work less!!!!" I disagree with that, if someone of the street can walk into my office and do my job better, they should get my job. If someone from another country can come to the US and beat me at my job, well they certainly earned it.

 

If we believe in American exceptionalism then shouldnt American workers beat non-american workers?

 

Just to be clear, I dont care what American's who want to take the easy road want. I am an American, I do not fear immigrants. I think most economic theory would support the fact that an increase in demand (more people) will cause there to be an increase in supply, which would result in an increase of jobs.

 

As for your hypothetical, 10 million people arent going anywhere. The number of applications are generally around 5-6mil per year, so the US would likely be looking at maybe an influx of 10mil people within the first 5 years and after then it should stabilize.

 

Even if it was 20mil, that would result in an increase of less than 10% of the population. The US would still be fraction of the size of China/India who will be our future competitors. The US would still have plenty of space, and quite frankly the US could really use more demand in the housing/land market, the banks are just sitting on empty properties.

[Soxbadger]

Free health care and education and government aid. You open up the doors and everyone will be here. It's better than where they are.

 

Where is this free health care you speak of?

 

And the US has opened its doors before, prior to 1924, not everyone came here. Surprisingly, some people actually dont want to come here.

[EvilMonkey]

Right these are the real concerns, isolationist fears, strangle competition before it starts.

 

Minimum wage is a sacred cow, no one is touching that even though its a significant problem and our attitude has to be adjusted. Back before globalization minimum wage in a country could work, but now when you can simply move the factory when labor gets to expensive, you have to make a hard decision, do you lower minimum wage to compete worldwide, or do we cling to the idea of American exceptionalism. (this is an argument for another day)

 

How do I think it will play with Americans who want to protect their job against someone who is more hungry and will harder?

 

Work harder. I hate barriers of entry, I despise them. Barriers of entry are great when you are part of the exclusive club, "lets make passing the bar harder that way there are less lawyers and we can all make more money and work less!!!!" I disagree with that, if someone of the street can walk into my office and do my job better, they should get my job. If someone from another country can come to the US and beat me at my job, well they certainly earned it.

 

If we believe in American exceptionalism then shouldnt American workers beat non-american workers?

 

Just to be clear, I dont care what American's who want to take the easy road want. I am an American, I do not fear immigrants. I think most economic theory would support the fact that an increase in demand (more people) will cause there to be an increase in supply, which would result in an increase of jobs.

 

As for your hypothetical, 10 million people arent going anywhere. The number of applications are generally around 5-6mil per year, so the US would likely be looking at maybe an influx of 10mil people within the first 5 years and after then it should stabilize.

 

Even if it was 20mil, that would result in an increase of less than 10% of the population. The US would still be fraction of the size of China/India who will be our future competitors. The US would still have plenty of space, and quite frankly the US could really use more demand in the housing/land market, the banks are just sitting on empty properties.

'Space' isn't the problem. Lack of a bottomless wallet is. Lack of jobs is.