MMT Has No Clothes[W:26]

[Moderate Right]

It is.



The act, not the person, ergo, dehumanizing.

.
Sure they do.



fallacy argument.



"I never said that" becomes...."so what". Thanks. And it wasn't that they were "working", it is that you are justifying "survival" wages by saying "Illegals can "survive" on such wages, therefore it is ok". The point was having to live far below the poverty line, 3 people to a bedroom.

Again, this is your private data source, you are not sharing it. You have once again created a fantasy situation that you cannot back up, spinning it wider and wider, moving away from my point, changing the argument to fit your scenario. If you want to argue/assume that undocumented workers earn a state/federal min wage, you go right ahead and believe that. And as I said, you have to turn the argument into something else, now you want to spin to morality......again, it is your tangent.

If you want to project by changing the argument, you go right ahead.



That is right, and a person is not a legal status, an act is.....based on an assumption that a novice knows the status.



Legal "protections"....becomes....a singular "protection". You change the goal post again.....and you will not say what specifically the singular protection they do not have....is. This is you again playing fast and lose with the English language, as you always do. You don't use facts, you use word games.



I just said yours and his use are miles apart, you cannot read now.

He used it as a pejorative that CONSERVATIVES use, you are smart enough to know this, which is why we both are laughing at your feigned outrage. You don't know "illegal" is a pejorative, or at least you are going to act this way.

Maybe I'm giving you way too much credit, maybe you really do think MMI is a racist, who knows, the point is, you ought to know better....in both circumstances.

And back to the ironic morality play, where you are not enlightened enough to know the reasons why "illegal" is wrong to use to describe a human.

All of this politically correct garbage needs to go. Next thing you know it will be dehumanizing to call a criminal a criminal. How do you feel about calling "illegals" criminals? After all, they did break the law, didn't they? Doesn't that make them criminals? Isn't breaking the law "illegal"? A spade is a spade.

 

[countryboy]

I did not see you add this to your quote after I responded to it. Let me clue you in on something, "illegals", "illegal immigrant" is a racist, dehumanizing term. I have no idea what undocumented workers in OR are paid, again, this is your tangent, based on your private data...I suppose. I'm not avoiding, I'm seriously amused by your racist tangent that I cannot connect to some larger point on minimum wage and "survival".

How in the world is calling something what it is, "dehumanizing", or, "racist"? In fact "illegal immigrant" isn't even accurate, and is too kind. They are illegal aliens. Not "undocumented workers". Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

All of this politically correct garbage needs to go. Next thing you know it will be dehumanizing to call a criminal a criminal. How do you feel about calling "illegals" criminals? After all, they did break the law, didn't they? Doesn't that make them criminals? Isn't breaking the law "illegal"? A spade is a spade.

Um, actually, until convicted, they are not convicted of anything (see, there is a process)....and these are not criminal offences....but civil.

 

[countryboy]

Um, actually, until convicted, they are not convicted of anything (see, there is a process)....and these are not criminal offences....but civil.

Soooo, from your point of view, it's perfectly okay to flout the laws of this country and sneak across the border?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Soooo, from your point of view, it's perfectly okay to flout the laws of this country and sneak across the border?

 

[Moderate Right]

Um, actually, until convicted, they are not convicted of anything (see, there is a process)....and these are not criminal offences....but civil.

So, you are saying that if someone robs a bank they are not a criminal until they are caught and found guilty, even though they actually did rob the bank and that everyone who commits "crimes" and has not been caught yet and found guilty are not actually criminals?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "civil". Are you saying that if an illegal (ha, ha) is caught they are going to have to pay monetary damages but not be put in jail?

 

[Moderate Right]

Soooo, from your point of view, it's perfectly okay to flout the laws of this country and sneak across the border?

It goes farther than that. He is saying that it is perfectly OK to flout the laws of the country (up to murder I guess) but that they are not a criminal until they are proven guilty of the murder, even though they really did do it in the first place. This is the liberal mindset.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So, you are saying that if someone robs a bank they are not a criminal until they are caught and found guilty, even though they actually did rob the bank and that everyone who commits "crimes" and has not been caught yet and found guilty are not actually criminals?

yes virginia, even those accused get a day in court to determine what law was violated.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "civil". Are you saying that if an illegal (ha, ha) is caught they are going to have to pay monetary damages but not be put in jail?

Ha ha, it doesn't know criminal law from civil law, yet it wants play Joe Arpaio. Yer argument doesn't even get to Barney Fife levels of competence.

 

[Moderate Right]

yes virginia, even those accused get a day in court to determine what law was violated.

Ha ha, it doesn't know criminal law from civil law, yet it wants play Joe Arpaio. Yer argument doesn't even get to Barney Fife levels of competence.

So, if a gang member murders your wife (let's just say that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time) and witnesses are too afraid to testify (or die of mysterious causes before the trial) and the gang member is either never arrested or is found not guilty by reasonable doubt, you are going to say that he is not a criminal because he was not convicted? You are going to say that someone who commits criminal acts is not a criminal, until proven guilty, even though they do indeed commit criminal acts? A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, whether you are found guilty or not. The law is a separate issue.

And what about OJ Simpson? He was found not guilty of murder but was found guilty in the wrongful death of his wife and lost his civil case? What did he do to cause the wrongful death of his wife? Is he a criminal (of murder) or not?

 

[jaeger19]

For those of you that might think that real wages have increased for the lower and middle classes... well I have already linked to evidence that real wages have declined or stagnated since the early 1980's.
However, some have tried to make the point that wages have been increasing for those during and after the great recession.

Here is some information on that:

Averaged across all occupations, real median hourly
wages declined by 4.0 percent from 2009 to 2014. As
Figure 1 shows, lower- and mid-wage occupations experienced
proportionately greater declines in their real wages
than did higher-wage occupations. Between 2009 and
2014, occupations in the bottom three-fifths saw median
wage declines of 4.0 percent or greater. By contrast,
median wages in the two highest quintiles declined by an
average of 2.6 and 3.0 percent, respectively.
Real median wages in the bottom quintile declined
by an average of 5.7 percent between 2009 and 2014, the
highest rate for any quintile.1

http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Occupational-Wage-Declines-Since-the-Great-Recession.pdf

Now on to Minimum wage and illegal immigrants:

Share of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers in Production, Construction Jobs Falls Since 2007 | Pew Research Center

now some folks might find that including illegal immigrants who make minimum wage with citizens make minimum wage is offensive. Well, I am sorry if you feel that way but if they both make minimum wage or less they are minimum wage earners.

 

[jaeger19]

So, if a gang member murders your wife (let's just say that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time) and witnesses are too afraid to testify (or die of mysterious causes before the trial) and the gang member is either never arrested or is found not guilty by reasonable doubt, you are going to say that he is not a criminal because he was not convicted? You are going to say that someone who commits criminal acts is not a criminal, until proven guilty, even though they do indeed commit criminal acts? A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, whether you are found guilty or not. The law is a separate issue.

And what about OJ Simpson? He was found not guilty of murder but was found guilty in the wrongful death of his wife and lost his civil case? What did he do to cause the wrongful death of his wife? Is he a criminal (of murder) or not?

Now now.. lets not start talking common sense here.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So, if a gang member murders your wife ...

Murder is a criminal offence. We are not debating criminal offences. But I don't mind watching conservatives continually equating undocumented aliens with murderers....or rapists....that is yer meme these days.

 

[Moderate Right]

Murder is a criminal offence. We are not debating criminal offences. But I don't mind watching conservatives continually equating undocumented aliens with murderers....or rapists....that is yer meme these days.

Breaking the law is breaking the law, whether you steal a candy bar, come into the country illegally, or murder someone. You are either for or against breaking the law.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Breaking the law is breaking the law, whether you steal a candy bar, come into the country illegally, or murder someone. You are either for or against breaking the law.

Again, I get it, there is no scale, its all black and white, if you run a red light, yer a criminal!

 

[Moderate Right]

Again, I get it, there is no scale, its all black and white, if you run a red light, yer a criminal!

Now you get it, although I was mainly talking about criminal acts, not civil acts where you can get a ticket for breaking the law and usually not jail time. But, you are right, if you purposely run a red light you have broken the law, whether you are ticketed or not. And, usually someone who has been arrested for a criminal act has already done it several times before finally being caught, just as someone has probably run several red lights before they finally get pulled over. If you go to court over it and somehow you get off, maybe because the cop who gave the ticket never showed up, it doesn't change the fact that you did indeed break the law by running the red light. Just because you got off doesn't mean you didn't do it. It just means that legally you got away with it.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Now you get it, although I was mainly talking about criminal acts, not civil acts where you can get a ticket for breaking the law and usually not jail time. But, you are right, if you purposely run a red light you have broken the law, whether you are ticketed or not. And, usually someone who has been arrested for a criminal act has already done it several times before finally being caught, just as someone has probably run several red lights before they finally get pulled over. If you go to court over it and somehow you get off, maybe because the cop who gave the ticket never showed up, it doesn't change the fact that you did indeed break the law by running the red light. Just because you got off doesn't mean you didn't do it. It just means that legally you got away with it.

Again, for the hard of reading, we are not talking about criminal acts, Drumpf.

 

[Moderate Right]

Again, for the hard of reading, we are not talking about criminal acts, Drumpf.

We are talking about criminal acts. Illegals can be arrested. They don't go to civil court if they are caught. There we go again with the name calling.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

We are talking about criminal acts. Illegals can be arrested. They don't go to civil court if they are caught. There we go again with the name calling.

yer argument is so incredibly ignorant, so oblivious to the meaning of words. I have nothing but contempt for those who misuse language to further racism. You are Drumpf.

 

[Moderate Right]

yer argument is so incredibly ignorant, so oblivious to the meaning of words. I have nothing but contempt for those who misuse language to further racism. You are Drumpf.

The left makes things up as they go along. They used to call these people illegals themselves at one time. How many different terms have been used to describe African Americans, until someone decided that a term was derogatory and changed it to something else? Same thing with native Americans. It was perfectly fine for decades to have a football team named the Redskins and then overnight it was deemed derogatory. You can also say the same thing for the description of overweight women, when describing their clothes. How many different terms have been used to describe the name of their clothing departments or the women themselves? Liberals just arbitrarily make things up as they go along and anyone who doesn't keep up with all the name changes that they initiated are referred to as bigots. Who made the left judge, jury, and exectutioner? Illegals refers to people in this country illegally. Could be white people, could be hispanics, could be any ethnic group.

 

[mmi]

The left makes things up as they go along. They used to call these people illegals themselves at one time.

No we didn't. The term, as anyone should be able to realize, is designed to stigmatize a group of people. And that's the common sense problem with it. If the group it's directed at objects, why not change it, say to "undocumented" immigrant? I suppose the idea is that these are criminals, and so they are not deserving of respect. I consider them to be Americans, with all the associated privileges and responsibilities.

Here's a sampling of early usage:

The legal definitions that differentiate between the Mexican national (legal immigrant), wetback (illegal immigrant), and Mexican-American (United States citizen of Mexican heritage) are quite clear. — "Mexican Illegal Immigration Into California, Principally Since 1945; a Socio-economic Study"

It must be remembered, however, that the prevailing agricultural wage for the illegal immigrant, the wetback, amounted to 25 cents. — "A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem," Law and Contemporary Problems 21 (Spring 1956): 334–357

From 1948 to 1950, provisions of the 1917 immigration law supported annual agreements with Mexico allowing recruitment of labor both from within Mexico and from among illegal Mexican "wetbacks" already in the United States. — "The emergence of federal assistance programs for migrant and seasonal farmworkers in post-World War II America," Ph.D dissertation written by a student at Iowa State University​

>>Illegals refers to people in this country illegally.

Yes, and the reference is derogatory. The attitude it engenders leads to stuff like like this:

"Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported," Scott Leader said after the attack, according to authorities.

When he was told of the assault in August, Trump said "it would be a shame . . . I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again." — "South Boston brothers plead guilty to brazen beating," Boston Globe, May 16, 2016​

 

[Moderate Right]

No we didn't. The term, as anyone should be able to realize, is designed to stigmatize a group of people. And that's the common sense problem with it. If the group it's directed at objects, why not change it, say to "undocumented" immigrant? I suppose the idea is that these are criminals, and so they are not deserving of respect. I consider them to be Americans, with all the associated privileges and responsibilities.

Here's a sampling of early usage:

The legal definitions that differentiate between the Mexican national (legal immigrant), wetback (illegal immigrant), and Mexican-American (United States citizen of Mexican heritage) are quite clear. — "Mexican Illegal Immigration Into California, Principally Since 1945; a Socio-economic Study"

It must be remembered, however, that the prevailing agricultural wage for the illegal immigrant, the wetback, amounted to 25 cents. — "A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem," Law and Contemporary Problems 21 (Spring 1956): 334–357

From 1948 to 1950, provisions of the 1917 immigration law supported annual agreements with Mexico allowing recruitment of labor both from within Mexico and from among illegal Mexican "wetbacks" already in the United States. — "The emergence of federal assistance programs for migrant and seasonal farmworkers in post-World War II America," Ph.D dissertation written by a student at Iowa State University​

>>Illegals refers to people in this country illegally.

Yes, and the reference is derogatory. The attitude it engenders leads to stuff like like this:

"Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported," Scott Leader said after the attack, according to authorities.

When he was told of the assault in August, Trump said "it would be a shame . . . I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again." — "South Boston brothers plead guilty to brazen beating," Boston Globe, May 16, 2016​

You can't say that illegals are actually Americans if they are here ILLEGALLY. And, they don't deserve all the associated privileges and responsibilities of being Americans if they are not Americans, but illegals. We don't call Hispanics that are here legally illegals, only all of the people from any nationality (including whites) who are here illegally. Now if you want to talk about wanting to make them legals instead of illegals, that is a different debate.

 

[mmi]

You can't say that illegals are actually Americans if they are here ILLEGALLY.

Why? Because you say I can't? Or you figure it just "doesn't make sense." Well, you'll find that in common parlance, the term "American" describes both those who were born in the US and "inhabitants."

>> And they don't deserve all the associated privileges and responsibilities of being Americans if they are not Americans

And so because they are Americans, …

>>if you want to talk about wanting to make them legals instead of illegals, that is a different debate.

I want them to be called "undocumented" rather than "illegal," for two reasons: first, they're Americans, and secondly, I don't want to go out of my way to stigmatize them and thereby encourage bigots to literally urinate on them after beating them up.

 

[Moderate Right]

Why? Because you say I can't? Or you figure it just "doesn't make sense." Well, you'll find that in common parlance, the term "American" describes both those who were born in the US and "inhabitants."

>> And they don't deserve all the associated privileges and responsibilities of being Americans if they are not Americans

And so because they are Americans, …

>>if you want to talk about wanting to make them legals instead of illegals, that is a different debate.

I want them to be called "undocumented" rather than "illegal," for two reasons: first, they're Americans, and secondly, I don't want to go out of my way to stigmatize them and thereby encourage bigots to literally urinate on them after beating them up.

I thought you guys were all in favor of the constitution? You have to be a citizen or legal immigrant to reap most of the rewards and programs of being an American. It's downright insulting to all of those immigrants who came here legally to let all of the illegals have the very same rights as what the law abiding immigrants do who did things the legal way. I'm not against some form of immigration reform but if you are here illegally, right now you are an illegal. You can be arrested and deported. That is the law.

 

[mmi]

You have to be a citizen or legal immigrant to reap most of the rewards and programs of being an American.

OK, "most." Ya can't see yer way to including the right not to be labelled as "AN ILLEGAL" among those we accord to … undocumented immigrants?

>>It's downright insulting to all of those immigrants who came here legally to let all of the illegals have the very same rights as what the law abiding immigrants do who did things the legal way.

Ya feel a need to stigmatize people who came here to find work to help raise their children?

>>if you are here illegally, right now you are an illegal. You can be arrested and deported.

And you agree we won't deport eleven million … Americans.

 

[Moderate Right]

OK, "most." Ya can't see yer way to including the right not to be labelled as "AN ILLEGAL" among those we accord to … undocumented immigrants?

>>It's downright insulting to all of those immigrants who came here legally to let all of the illegals have the very same rights as what the law abiding immigrants do who did things the legal way.

Ya feel a need to stigmatize people who came here to find work to help raise their children?

>>if you are here illegally, right now you are an illegal. You can be arrested and deported.

And you agree we won't deport eleven million … Americans.

I never said I was a Trump supporter and I am not, although I may have to bite the bullet and vote for him over "crooked Hillary". I'm waiting to see his VP pick. Both you and I favored John Kasich. And, I do favor immigration legislation and I am also sympathetic to the fact that they came here illegally to better their lives but it isn't fair to those who came here legally to just decriminalize what the illegals have done. I hope something can be worked out because deporting eleven million illegals (not Americans, we don't deport Americans) isn't even feasible. But, that doesn't change the fact that someone who illegally came to our country is an illegal. It's not a dehumanizing term just because you righteous lefties claim it to be. Funny how you lefties look down on righteous people of religion for their beliefs while being righteous yourselves. Some of you people on the left are just plain ridiculous with your terminologies. How is this any different than calling a gay person gay? Isn't that dehumanizing, or haven't you gotten around to deciding that yet? And we had trouble declaring that ISIS was a terror organization and that we are at war with Islamic radicals? Really?