Yes.When you say, "taxes", are you referring to medicare and SS matching that employers have to do?
Yes, let's do away with welfare, too. Perhaps it would get people working, but if not, that's not my problem. I'd rather see a level playing field for everyone who desires to work. Right now, the deck is stacked against those who attempt to follow the law, and that's not right.Doing away with minimum wage laws isn't going to fix anything. People just aren't going to work for 3$ per hour and I don't blame them. They can make more than that on welfare, which is what all the new American citizens are going to figure out and be on welare quicker than you flick flies off of ****.
There isn't enough people at ICE to even make a dent in the problem. Therefore you must use state and local law enforcement
So serious it's not even a felony?
Where are you getting this money? As it stands now, DC has been trying to make municipalities enforce immigration laws as an unfunded mandate. Since it isn't being funded, it must necessarily draw down police manpower levels.That is fine. If more money is needed, so be it. Tracking down criminals is worth spending money on.
Drunk driving is piloting several tons of metal at a high rate of speed while voluntarily impaired, which is wrong in and of itself -- a malum in se. An immigration violation is basically crossing an arbitrary line without official permission, which is only "wrong" because there is a law forbidding it -- a malum prohibitum. They are not comparable.Neither is drunk driving. Things don't have to be a felony to be a serious criminal act.
Illegal immigration is not the fault of any government, but the fault of the people who chose to break laws to improve their situation.
There is no excuse for being a criminal.
Where are you getting this money? As it stands now, DC has been trying to make municipalities enforce immigration laws as an unfunded mandate. Since it isn't being funded, it must necessarily draw down police manpower levels.
Drunk driving is piloting several tons of metal at a high rate of speed while voluntarily impaired, which is wrong in and of itself -- a malum in se. An immigration violation is basically crossing an arbitrary line without official permission, which is only "wrong" because there is a law forbidding it -- a malum prohibitum. They are not comparable.
Actually, the trade liberalization angle will reveal the fact that governments that negotiated trade agreements that provided financial benefits that accrued overwhelmingly in the interests of the American (and to a lesser extent, the Mexican) financial class bear responsibility for the exacerbation of inequitable international wage differentials and destabilization amongst the Mexican working classes that created a need for immigration.
Of course there is. Civil disobedience, for example, was and is based on the violation of laws in accordance with presumed higher ethical standards. In this case, an interest in sustenance seems a fairly appropriate cause for lawbreaking.
That is a reason that people come to America illegally. It does not excuse doing so.
Again, a reason to do something is not an excuse to do something. If you engage in civil disobedience, you become a criminal, and should be punished as the law calls for. Saying "oh, it's civil disobedience" does not magically make it allright.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The lead Democrat steering an immigration overhaul through the Senate said Wednesday he expects to have a bill ready by Labor Day that is more generous to highly skilled immigrant workers than those who are lower skilled and is tough on future waves of illegal immigration.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Sen. Chuck Schumer said an immigration bill can be done by the end of the year or early next year that works out disagreements between labor and business interests on the flow of legal foreign workers.
Schumer said the way to get the bill done is to be very tough on future waves of illegal immigration. He declared himself pro-immigration and said the U.S. should encourage legal immigration and find some kind of path for people now here to find a way to legal citizenship.
"I think one of the ways to bridge it is to
Ana Avendano, AFL-CIO's director of immigration policy, said Schumer's "one size doesn't fit all" view is shared by labor. "We want employers to have workers they need, but the key is determining when there is a real need, not one employers make up when they import temporary workers."
Earlier Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said beginning Sept. 8, businesses wanting federal contracts would have to use E-Verify, a Web-based system, to check whether their employees are legally working in the U.S. The Bush and Obama administrations had delayed implementing the rule.
The department also said it is abandoning a Bush administration plan to force employers to fire workers who can't resolve a mismatch between their Social Security numbers don't match their names. The administration said it would come up with a new rule.
Seems like it would make more sense to change the system in a way that would reduce the length of the line and remove the temptation for not using the system.
But I guess that's unpatriotic of me to even suggest ...
Why should we divert police resources away from finding rapists and murderers to catch those productive members of the workforce who are guilty of nothing more than an administrative offense?
Nor will it result in 20 million illegal immigrants ever being effectively deported, since they will attempt to return if domestic conditions if their homelands have not changed.
Domestic conditions need to change here too.
Firstly, we need to eliminate excessive demand for low-skilled labor,
Illegal immigration is not the fault of any government, but the fault of the people who chose to break laws to improve their situation. There is no excuse for being a criminal.
Where are you getting this money?
No logical analysis could abandon consideration of ethics in favor of mere blind adherence to legal standards.
The use of well dispersed anti-personnel mines at the most popular border crossings will discourage recidivism.
Absolutely. It should be against the law for an illegal invader to be able to file any kind of lawsuit against any legal American resident for actions that resident took to defend himself, his home, his family, his property, and his favorite cactus from the depredations of the Invader.
Buckshot is a good deterent to Invasion, I hear.
Easy.
Eliminate welfare.
A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases - best economic performers - in what G. Esping-Andersen calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.
Eliminate minumum wage.
[M]inimum wages...are seen as raising wages above the market-clearing level, reducing employment in the affected sectors. But, in oligopsonistic labor markets, minimum wages and trade unions are unlikely to have the same effect. If labor markets have substantial wage dispersion (and both theory and evidence suggest that they do), then minimum wages are likely to "push" the wage distribution from below as, by definition, they directly affect the lowest wages in the market...
Recent work on the economic effects of minimum wages has stressed that the standard economic model, where increases in minimum wages depress employment, is not supported by empirical work in some labor markets. We present a general theoretical model whereby employers have some degree of monopsony power, which allows minimum wages to have the conventional negative impact on employment but which also allows for a neutral or positive impact. Studying the industry‐based British Wages Councils between 1975 and 1992, we find that minimum wages significantly compress the distribution of earnings but do not have a negative impact on employment.
Our own unskilled starvlings will work, finally, for the first time in their useless lives.
No logical analysis can make it ethical for our elected government to violate the very first principle of governance: the protection of the nation from invasion.
Sorry, but my libertarian sentiments prevent me from supporting that sort of authoritarian police state policy,
"Invader"?
That won't be tolerated.
That's a rather poor suggestion for an advocate of capitalism to make.
Welfare programs are a necessary element of maintaining the stability and efficiency in the capitalist economy,
When we keep in mind the fact that unemployment is a form of static inefficiency,
There's no sound ethical principle that provides a basis for resisting immigration.
That is fine. If more money is needed, so be it. Tracking down criminals is worth spending money on.
Neither is drunk driving. Things don't have to be a felony to be a serious criminal act.
You're a socialist, and we all know socialists are against freedom, so you can't be a libertarian.
Invader.
I like to use the correct words. It makes the issues clearer.
So the invaders aren't going to tolerate people defending their homes and their families.
And you agree with the invaders.
Terminating welfare and arresting people breaking the law?
Yes, that's just tewwible, isn't it?
Funny, then how the US did so well for so long without it.
So much for your contention. We didn't have any stupid welfare programs until that socialist pig FDR forced them on us, and the nation did just fine for the 150 years before that.
No. Unemployment is the natural result of not having work.
Ya ever notice that no economy has ever had 100% employment?
[T]o induce its workers not to shirk, the firm attempt to pay more than the going wage; then, if a worker is caught shirking and he is fired, he will pay a penalty. If it pays one firm to raise its wage, however, it will pay all firms to raise their wages. When they all raise their wages, the incentive not to shirk again disappears. But as all firms raise their wages, their demand for labor decreases, and unemployment results. With unemployment, even if all firms pay the same wages, a worker has an incentive not to shirk. For, if he is fired, an individual will not immediately obtain another job. The equilibrium unemployment rate must be sufficiently high that it pays workers to work rather than to take the risk of being caught shirking.
But there's plenty for resisting an invasion.
The term "libertarian" was coined by anarchists
Yeah, you lost that argument.
The anarchist coined it because he was trying to lie, as all anarchists will.
Libertarianism in the US is about liberty, not socialism, and a nation can't have liberty if it permits itself to be destroyed by the first invading horde of illiterates that comes sauntering across the border.
Evasion? That particular distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se is a pretty well-grounded legal idea that we brought over from England a couple of centuries ago. The only evasion happening is your evasion of such an obvious distinction. Comparing drunk driving to illegal immigration is ridiculous, and I showed you why.Nice evasion. Drunk driving is not a felony, but is a serious crime. Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony, but is a serious crime. You may not think it is serious, and that is fine, you are welcome to your opinion, but to many of us, it is serious to have people enter our country without using the legal process.
Evasion? That particular distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se is a pretty well-grounded legal idea that we brought over from England a couple of centuries ago. The only evasion happening is your evasion of such an obvious distinction. Comparing drunk driving to illegal immigration is ridiculous, and I showed you why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?