American Excess
 

This is a brilliant photo-study of the amount of consumption (and other social issues) in America today.

A common view from the bottom looking up.

I wouldn't call it a class issue. Plastic bottles and plastic bags aren't the trappings of the rich. The point is the disposable culture to which we belong. Consider the trash of someone in the middle class in the 1700's compared to today. If it wasn't hauled away, the plastic bottles, plastic bags, aluminum cans, etc would reach higher than the roofs of our houses in a year or two.

Recycling has helped, but gone are the days when we refilled bottles, reused boxes, etc. Right now we're exporting a lot of trash, but this is not sustainable.

Did you ever hear of syringes and medical waste washing up on beaches in the 30's, 40's, and 50's?

Rich, you might be interested in this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/op...on&oref=slogin

Some of his arguments are sketchy but the main point is good.

I could not agree more... well until the author threw in: "or children without health insurance (9 million). ", then it obviously became a political issue and the author was exposed as having an adgenda other than saving the environment (which I would have otherwise supported).:3eye:

yes, because trying to save childrens lives and protect their health is definitely just political pandering.

A humanitarian agenda =/= a political agenda, except where one side is against humanitarianism.

Is this honestly what america has come to?
*sigh*

Fuck that. Bleeding hearts want you to believe that people are dying left and right in America becasue of the lack of national health insurance and that is bull shit. I work in health care and can tell you that all of the illegal aliens are getting free health care in the US while those citzens who were born here get nadda...

I hope you wont be too offended if I don't take your word for it.

Not at all, this is a public board filled with nothing more than individual opinions. Enjoy. Share. Consider.

Emergency rooms around the country are apparently clogged with illegal aliens who have no insurance. i know this cuz my bro told me so - so there.

ibram i've seen it with my own eyes dude. they use the ER like a normal family physician - they can show up, can't be turned away, and all they have to do is sign a BS document saying they'll pay at some future date.

But lookout - they aren't a drain on our resources:eyebrow:

anyone who believes that should come spend just a little time in the schools, hospitals, and jails here. if they walk away with the same opinion they are either deluded or a liar.

So, because of our lack of national health insurance, illegal aliens are doing great, and citizens are dying left and right?

That doesn't seem to support your "bull shit" accusation.

Two questions:

How much do illegal aliens help our economy? I am not talking about through taxes, but if all the illegals were deported, how much would our economy be realistically affected in all areas?

When NAFTA passed and the corn farms moved from Mexico to the United States because it is cheaper to make corn here, how much money has the United States taken from Mexico?

well that depends. if we just shipped them back to their countries of origin and called it a done deal then that would cause problems. i want someone to pick my oranges dammit.

but if we ship out the illegals and fix the LEGAL immigration system to make it simpler, cheaper, and faster and increase the number allowed LEGALLY then it wouldn't cause long term problems. would there be some wage inflation? yep. would that work itself out? yep. most of the problems would be caused by greedy employers fighting the law like they are doing with our new employer sanctions law in arizona.

As far as corn farms moving to the US - not sure what you are talking about - I grew up in corn country, corn has always been grown there.

I believe if illegals were deported, much of our service industry would be hurt. I'm talking maids, lawn care, janitorial staff, cooks, etc. Farmers... well, there are already programs in place for migrant workers to come into the US for a short period of time specifically to help the farmers during peak times.
Did NAFTA take money from Mexico, or just from a few large corporations that owned the corn business and paid their employees squat?

Again, if the illegals all disappeared tomorrow and were not replaced then yes, those industries would be hurt. But if we increase the number of legal immigrants to fill the jobs then the pain would not be catastrophic. If a company cannot make a profit using legal employees then that company should not be in business - end of story.

Why doesn't the US just increase the number of authorized immigrants? Does anyone know the basis for this? They're already here... so why not make them legal (with obviously some scrutiny... don't want felons to stay)? If they become legal, they start paying taxes, can get medical insurance, which in turn takes eases the burden on hospitals, makes more money available for welfare...
I've never understood why we don't have a short amnesty period in which everyone already here can register and start the legal naturalization process. Denying them legal status does not make them go home.

we tried amnesty in the '80's. it didn't work as now all the illegals here are just waiting for the next go-round. the reason that immigration isn't easily reformed is evident in small scale in arizona right now. Immigration reform has to start with controlling our existing borders better and getting a handle on those that are already here. If they broke the law to get here, and they broke the law to work illegally, then they are by definition criminals. You don't give known criminals legal residency status.

The voters passed a measure that would penalize employers found to knowingly employ illegal immigrants. This isn't a law limiting immigration - it is a law that creates a tangible penalty for breaking an existing law. If the employer is proven to knowingly employ an illegal then the business license is revoked for a minimum of 10 days and all operations have to stop, along with monetary penalties.

Business owners - including a handful of fast food restaurant franchisees immediately sued to stop the law saying it was unfair. Their case was dismissed. They have gone to the press crying "I could lose my business if an illegal slips in and gets hired." Untrue. It is a system of attrition - all new hires must be checked within 72 hours. Their name and social security number is checked against the everify system. If it comes up clean the employer cannot be held responsible for future findings on the employee. If it gets flagged it is up to the employee to provide proof of legal residence or they are terminated. Seems simple enough - but employers are trying to block it.

What what else is there besides amnesty?

Deporting them is a very very bad solution no matter what side you stand on this and just leaving them as they are won't help at all. I still have major doubts that illegal immigrants hurt the United States on a large scale because if they did, the borders would have been closed for a while now. No one knows just how much they affect the economy so making a decision without really looking at that would backfire immediately.

There is not going to be a "good" solution for this so we will have to look at the one that will give us the least amount of blowback. And the fact that they are "criminals" shouldn't have much leeway in this, with this many people crossing the borders I really doubt it is a morality issue.

the "lots of kids do it" argument? i don't think so.

Why?

Do you really think this administration and big business gives a fuck about anything but the buck?

This is not the "lots of kids do it" argument. This is obviously a very tough decision that has been made by a lot of people out of necessity than anything. Not only do many have to move, or at least become separated from family, into another country where you know you are breaking the law and entering into a culture that you will have a very hard time being accepted and prospering into. I don't see how that is a child decision.

First, moving to one place from another is always a very tough decision that very few people do on a limb, and what makes it even harder is to leave one's country and go into another where it is not easy to communicate or live a simple life. It would be like one of us moving to a foreign country that is mainly consisted of people of color, they also hold the higher power jobs as well, that does not speak English but enough it so you can get by and live in your own little groups. Would you ever do that unless you absolutely needed too? To think most of them wouldn't do it unless out of necessity isn't a bad assumption either.

Second, with the number of people coming over, there is obviously something wrong within the system that is encouraging Mexicans and other Latin Americans to come over here illegally. What is the estimate of the number of illegals in the United States? 15 to 20 million? That is about 1/5 to 1/7 the population of Mexico itself. The number coming from Mexico is going to be lower but I don't even know if European immigration in the 1700 and 1800s were that high proportionally.

I have also talked to a large number of immigrants and each of them has repeatably told me that there are no jobs in Mexico and no one is going to leave their families behind to work 10-15 hours a day in shit jobs with shit pay unless it is absolutely necessary.

Whether or not I should break a law that does not involve me hurting anyone to feed my family is not a big moral question. It is a rational choice that these people have been forced to make. They are breaking the law, but it is the system that is in question, not their morality.

Why is mass deportation a bad idea. Because you have to take in these seven factors.

• How much will this deportation cost?
• How will deportation hurt the economy?
• How will crime be affected by deportation?
• How will communities be affected by deportation?
• How will we keep the illegal aliens out after deporting them?
• Do we want to give the government that kind of power?
• How will be viewed by our own country and the rest of the world?

Right now we have three "wars" that are bottomless pits in terms of money and I want to get rid of all three much less start another one. How much will it cost to deport 15-20 million people that are scattered all across the United States and have blended in with many legal US citizens? How many more employees will we need to hire and how much will we pay them? What is the average cost for deporting one person, much less deporting tens of millions of them? It would be ultimate irony if we decide to deport illegal immigrants because they cost us too much money and the deportation process costs more money than they used up on social services.

Second, I already asked this question knowing that there is no answer for it. How will our economy be affected if we do deport all the illegal immigrants?

Third, how will crime be affected by deportation? I am not looking for some statistic on crime rates because that is irrelevant. Picture this situation. You are an illegal immigrant who has already been accused of being a criminal and breaking the law and are basically being hunted like a dog. You can not go back to Mexico and expect to support yourself and your family and your supply has just been cut off here. There is no place you can go for food and shelter. How are you going to eat and feed your family? The only answer I can think of is crime. If we start mass deporting illegal immigrants, I would expect the crime rates to shoot up astronomically.

Fourth, how will communities be affected? In the south, migrants are a large part of the community and many illegal migrants have blended into those communities. What negative affects will come from deporting the illegals create? How will these communities be viewed the rest of society and most importantly, how will these communities view the rest of society and how will they react to this? How will racial tensions be affected and what will be the effects of those?

Fifth, how will we keep the illegal aliens out once we deport them? We can build a wall, which will bring up questions about money, labor, resources, upkeep, etc. But, are there other ways that illegal immigrants can come back in and how will we fix those?

Sixth, do we want to give the government this kind of power. If we deport millions of immigrants, there will be people that will have to do the deporting. How can we avoid hiring blatant racists that will not only abuse their power but start harassing LEGAL American citizens? How quickly will illegals turn into undesirables? How can we make sure that only illegal citizens will be avoided and what will it take to be able to find the difference?

Seventh, how will we be viewed by the rest of the world and in our country? How will other countries react to this and how will other minorities view this? When talking about racial tensions, racism always comes up so how will overall racial tensions in America and the world be affected? How will blacks, Asians, Arabs, Natives, and whites react to this and how will our society be affected by these reactions?


If we are going to do some sort of deportation, not only the seven big questions I asked, but all the smaller ones, will HAVE to be answered to avoid blowback much bigger than what we are dealing with right now.

That is what I meant by hurt our country on a large scale. Besides crime, which comes from poverty, all the arguments are either "they are criminals" or they waste too much money.

If we were losing money as a whole, the borders would have been closed a long time ago.

Wait, other than the fact that they keep coming here illegally - why is the problem in their country my concern. If anything it should be their concern and they should stay there to fix it.

Complete deportation isn't going to happen. Attrition can happen. Strong border enforcement, employer sanctions, stiffer penalty for being caught here illegally will make the US less attractive for potential border jumpers. Those that are already here illegally didn't cross the border once to stay forever more - they cross the border to see their families quite frequently. Stronger Border enforcement will prevent them from coming back. Stiff employer sanctions will prevent them from getting jobs illegally - many will look elsewhere for work - they came here for the money in the first place remember? Stiffer penalties for being caught are necessary because little to nothing happens now. It is a no risk crime.

As far as the blowback that you are concerned about, I think it is overblown when put in the context of attrition rather than instantaneous deportation. Maybe, just maybe these people will decide to do something about the problems in their own countries rather than come here.

I see illegals every single day with my own eyes. I live with them all around me. That's life in the southwest.

No, if large businesses were losing money as a whole the borders would have been closed.

So as long as Minnesota raises the economic average, the border states and their southernmost municipalities can suck it, right? Because they are costing us money overall, even by the admission of the most immigration-friendly comptroller this side of the Mason-Dixon line.

These solutions make more sense, attacking the institutions instead of the reactions to them. I still think there is a deeper problem than this that has come with trade liberalization and the fact that companies that hire illegal aliens are doing it because it will allow them to make a bigger profit. Just like the migrants themselves, these companies are making rational decisions that support their best interest, capital.

If the problem with immigration is going to be solved, there will have to be focus on the real base problem, not the reactions, because every other solution will just fall flat on its face or create new problems that will have to solved in a decade or so.

Oh c'mon, you expect me to give you a lot of sympathy for this problem when you refuse to give sympathy for the migrants and their problems? Blaming the immigrants is not going to solve anything, the institutions that are creating the problems are the only way this can be solved correctly.

Can you give any suggestions on how low-skilled workers can turn their economy around, or why there is a great incentive to work here instead of in Mexico?

That's a little presumptive, don't you think? That was the first post I've even made in this thread... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were still seething from your conversation with lookout. I have stated before in other threads that I would prefer for illegal immigrants to be assimilated into the social systems that they are benefitting from, i.e. an easier road to naturalization and paying taxes. I certainly recognize the flaws in the institutions, because I am directly affected by them on a daily basis. Your seven-point Poli Sci 101 essay aside, you still ultimately assert that they are not "hurting our economy" with the current state of affairs, and that is what I was responding to.

Pity does not change the fact that their overall monetary effect is currently negative for many communities. Deportation does not have to be the solution (I, for one, think it's impractical and unrealistic if nothing else) but that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem, and any solution requires more than the multi-generational (if not outright utopian) goal of 'improving the lives of people in other countries.'

My fault then. I thought you were focusing on something else.

Immigrants are very good for the economy in some areas and hurtful in others, I realize that fact, but I would prefer having at least an idea of how helpful immigrants are in other areas because just cutting off sources without looking into them can be very dangerous.

The problem I see is that there might be a correlation between what is happening economically in Mexico, immigration, and NAFTA. I still don't know enough about it to say for certain, but I have glanced into it and there seems to be similarities. That is one of the reasons for my harder stance. If it just came out of nowhere and the US did nothing to cause or worsen the problem, I would have a different viewpoint.

They work here because of more money, less corruption, better and free medical care, and the knowledge nothing will happen if they get caught here. Makes sense. Eliminate the source of their jobs (punish employers), refuse all but true emergency medical care and report them to ICE when they do show up, and make real meaningful penalties for being caught here. Then fewer will feel the risk is worth it.

But remember - fixing the legal immigration system goes hand in hand with this.
Illegals were here long before NAFTA. It is not our job to make sure everyone in Mexico has solid employment and a big screen tv. Secure the borders, overhaul immigration and let them deal with their problems.

Have you ever sped? I bet the answer is yes. You broke the law. You are therefore a criminal, and we should question your morality. Maybe we should take away your right to vote since you are a criminal? Seriously, do you think we should categorize all illegal immigrants as criminals? Do you think we should categorize every person who broke any law as criminals? Speeding? What about littering? Were you ever late re-registering your car? Has your drivers licence ever expired before you went in and got a new one? What about loosing your ID, and going around for a few days before having the time to go in and get a new one? All of these acts is illegal. So I guess I am a criminal too.

I don't think the majority of people believe the majority of illegal immigrants are "criminals", which implies deviant behavior and a propensity to break serious laws. They are seeking a better life. I think the issue most people have with their illegal status is that they do not pay into the 'system' (taxes) yet receive the benefits (medical care).

Among the people who call for deporting all illegal aliens now, I wonder how many would think twice after paying $10.00 for a head of lettuce. Perhaps more, there are union dues to think about....

I'm reminded of the line from one of the star wars movies, "you must understand that you form a symbiotic relationship".

I think that when we start making decisions that are in the best interest of all concerned that we find the most success.

That's just sitting here having coffee this morning tho, check back this afternoon, I might be a little more hard line.

Very well put Joe.

Yes, and when I was caught I paid the penalty for breaking that law. I paid the penalty when I re-registered late. I paid the penalty each and every time I've been found not to be in compliance with the law. When I was not in compliance with the law (committing a crime) I was indeed a criminal, make sense?
Uh, yes? What else would you call someone who lives each and every day intentionally breaking the law?
Criminal = someone breaking the law regardless of whether it is a "serious law". And while we're at it - could you list for me which laws we should enforce and which ones we shouldn't? Are some laws just suggestions? Requests? Ideals? Whether or not you agree with a law is irrelevent. If it is a law that is on the books you are responsible for complying or you breaking the law, committing a criminal act.
I have a problem with the fact that they are breaking the law by being here. They drive around getting into auto accidents uninsured. They drive down the quality of public education. The tax issue is only part of the story.
Thanks for the hyperbole. There may very well be price inflation as the economy adjusts, but not to that extreme. The job isn't going to start paying $20/hour just because legal employees are now picking the produce. And unions- not so much. Low skill jobs in right to work states have ZERO chance of unionizing and driving up costs.

I am aware of this, but it seems that there was a large increase of illegal immigration after NAFTA passed.

Illegal Immigrants are criminals but that doesn't mean that they are making immoral or irrational decisions. When a society is set up so the most rational decision is to break a law, you know there is a problem or flaw somewhere. Why do you think so many people in the inner city take up drug dealing instead of working at a minimum wage job? It is the most rational decision for them. The risks of drug dealing is much worth the extra money they will be making from it. $1000 a week is much better than $150 a week working full time in a job that very few people could possibly enjoy.

Are you kidding me? You are actually going to argue that it is ok to deal drugs if you can make more money doing that than working hard for less money? I make pretty ok money right now, but I guarandamntee I kind double my income immediately if I choose to break a couple laws I'm not fond of, and I most likely wouldn't be caught. Would that be rational? Would that be moral? Would you condone that as being understandable?

First, not all drug dealers are like the stereotypical inner city version. They are not all immoral people who will kill people if screwed over and try to get people hooked on hard drugs. The reason many get into drug dealing is because they can make good money off it, they get access to pot, and it is a pretty easy job. It is much better than working at McDonald's for 60 hours a week and earning a fourth of the pay. A perfectly rational decision for the situation they are in.

The drug dealers I do know both got into for the above reasons. They only deal pot so they do not try to get people hooked into harder drugs for profit and they will not come after you if you screw them over, they blame themselves for being stupid. Both of these people are some of the nicest and smartest people I've met just making the best of an opportunity to get some extra cash and not slave away in a typical lower class job.

I would argue that the stereotypical inner city drug dealer is immoral but still making a rational decision. But I would also consider being a business executive at a tobacco companies immoral but a rational decision. In both situations you are trying to get people hooked on a drugs that could very well kill you with deceptive tactics for the sole purpose of making money off you. The only difference between the two is that the system favors business executives over drug dealers.


For your situation, it is harder to decide and the rationality and morality is subjective. If you broke a law, would you being hurting anyone or screwing anyone over? If you are, then it probably would be considered immoral. If it is just a bullshit law like the illegalization of marijuana, then it probably could be considered justifiable but I would have to actually see the situation to give my personal moral preference on it (I am not asking for the situation, just stating that fact).

Rationality is harder. It is easy for the drug dealing and illegal migrant scenario because there are two extremes. Would you rather work your entire life as a low skill low pay worker that has to do a lot of manual labor and constantly worrying about even basic economic stability or would you rather get a good paying job with little manual labor and never have to worry about economic stability if you break a few laws and maybe even commit some (very) immoral acts. Then you have to take in social forces into consideration. The inner city does not value hard work as much as many other areas so the pride in working hard and earning what you get in the typical sense is not a strong factor as getting an easy buck through hustling. For them, drug dealing is perfectly rational and I agree.

I already explained my stance on illegal migration with rationality.

For your situation it is much harder because you probably have some sense of economic stability even though I'm sure you do not feel economic freedom. You still are worrying about bills and other factors but not as far as feeding your kids or putting a roof over there head (this is an assumption that you are in a typical middle class situation). Is going to jail worth that risk? I would say no and I think you would agree with that, hence why you have no broken the law. I think you said you have children and going to jail would be very bad in your situation unlike someone who sells drugs who usually do not have children any many, being black, know that 1/3 of their race go to jail anyways. The social factors that affect you for making these decisions are not the same that affect them so it is expected that there will be some overlap on what is considered rational and sometimes morality. This is another example of how middle class solutions do not always work for the lower class and how lower class solutions do not always work for the middle class.

Your entire argument and apparently view of life is based on the shifting sands of moral relativeism. If something is right, it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A feeling that doing the "wrong" thing is easier and "not that unusual" doesn't make it right.

I happen to have had more than a passing knowledge about the drug industry. First hand knowledge, not something from a book or a sociology class. So let's take your example. You've established that it is ok for someone to choose to sell pot rather than get a legal job because it is easier, makes more money, and it's just a silly law anyway. If I, with my knowledge and resources, choose to leave my job tomorrow and work strictly in the arena of marijuana I could certainly double or even triple my income practically overnight. I could do this with little risk of being caught, certainly no risk of jail, and the only real risk I would be taking would be loss of capital. Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

If it makes it easier let's put it in "reality". I can take a $20,000 investment today, scrub it so that there is no connection to me, and turn that $20K into approximately $50K in a month. Would that be right or wrong for me to do?

Believe "driving down the quality of public education" would be addressed with, hmmm... paying taxes. And they wouldn't be uninsured either if hmmm... they could get a license and insurance.

You claim rightouesness by saying, yes you've been caught speeding and have paid a fine. But has that stopped you from speeding? Be honest. How many times have you sped, versus how many times have you been caught? If you haven't turned yourself into the police and paid a fine for each and everytime you've sped, guess what - you're still a criminal. Just because you weren't caught doesn't mean you aren't guilty. Sounds like moral relativeism on your part to me.

See here is the thing - what you are talking about are the benefits of having legal status. If they have all of the benefit of legal immigrants but didn't have to go through any of the hassle - why would anyone choose to go the legal route?

That is, however, not the same as legal and illegal.You would be a criminal, by definition. The other two questions (right or wrong, and worthy of punishment) are more up in the air.

Not so much HM. If I knowingly broke the law I am wrong for doing so and worthy of punishment. Weighing the odds and deciding it is worth the risk doesn't make my decision right or any less worthy of punishment.

And before anyone goes off the deepend and says "what about Rosa Parks???" With the thinly veiled "you're a racist" left hanging, I'll answer. She knowingly and boldly broke the law and made herself worthy of punishment. She took the risk of very real punishment with the higher ideal of drawing attention to a law she felt was immoral and wrong. I happen to agree with her cause and am glad she chose to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that she did break the law and risked real punishment.

I've yet to meet an illegal who says "I illegally crossed the border in broad daylight in front of witnesses so that I might challenge and rectify this social injustice that you call legal immigration". They sneek in, they hide their status, and they make no political or social point. Far different than the high-minded civil rights movement. So yes, they intentionally broke the law, that puts them in the wrong and worthy of the punishment allowed by that law.

You presume none of them want to law abiding. I would argue most want to be law abiding, but life has dealt them a set of circumstances where the best solution is to be an illigal immigrant. Given a chance to be legal, most would. Why are there so many applications to become legal immigrants? Not because people want to pay taxes, but because they don't want to be illegal. They don't want to worry about being arrested. They want to be able to get medical insurance and go see the same doctor instead of waiting for 12 hours at the ER to be treated for a cold, or to actually have prenatal care, or to recieve regular care for high blood pressure... And if they become legal, chances are they can get a better paying job, instead of being limited to employers that will higher illegals.

Risking punishment and being worthy of punishment aren't the same. She risked punishment to show that all people who were punished under that law weren't wrong or worthy of punishment. None of the people punished under that law were wrong or worthy of punishment, even if they weren't breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience.

And I want to be wealthy but life dealt me a different set of circumstances - I was born into a poor family with a fine tradition of not escaping the neighborhood and a more than passing aquaintance with the penal system.

I chose to follow the rules even when it wasn't the easiest or most attractive path. I chose to fight my way into school paying for it myself through military service and multiple jobs. I chose to accept a sub-poverty line paying job after college. I chose to keep working hard inside the system even when it would have been easier not to. I choose every day to keep working in the system in the knowledge that where I go is up to me. Maybe I'll hit the target, maybe I won't. Life doesn't always deal you what you want. Tough shit. Deal with it. Don't expect sympathy from me for people who decide it is ok to break the law because they didn't have golden opportunities handed to them.

Yes they were. They knowingly broke the law. We are taught from early on that breaking the law is wrong. Breaking the law makes us worthy of punishment. The law itself may be morally repugnant and worthy of being overturned, but if the law is upheld then you are accountable to that law.

Yes, I a do have some influences of moral relativism but I do this for deeper reasons. Because of this I have to ask this question, why do you consider dealing marijuana morally worse than getting a job recognized by the government? I personally think it is morally wrong to illegalize marijuana so someone breaking the law is not immoral, but not moral either. Keep in mind, this also coming from someone whose perspective is that social laws, while very important, are not all powerful. I think your perspective involves putting social laws higher up than me on importance, which might cause some differences.

You should be punished if caught because it is a law even if you disagree with it. The problem is that I see the law of illegal marijuana as an unjustifiable law so that means breaking an unjustifiable law isn't immoral. I wouldn't say it is moral, but it wouldn't be immoral. Drug dealing is just the result of the capitalist system. There is a demand for drugs but no legal supply for illegal drugs. That means, to meet the demand, drug dealers will have to break the law to meet the demand and make money. If drugs were legalized, the demand for an underground drug system would go away, making it a reaction of the drug laws. I am not advocating that it is moral to fulfill the free market demand, but that there is a flaw within the system and it is rational for people that are willing to take the risk of being caught to gain profit off this flaw. Like I said earlier, assuming we are talking about safe drug trafficking, I still wouldn't call it moral because you are breaking a law, but I wouldn't call it immoral because that law is unjustifiable.

Honestly, I know shit about investing so I don't know what technique you are talking about.


You are getting into morality levels. Rosa Parks would be considered at a level five stage of morality because she purposely broke the law to make a point about how it is unjustifiable. The illegal immigrants would probably be at a level two stage because they know illegally crossing the border is illegal and "technically" wrong because of it but they they are doing it because they need money. I want to make this clear, just because someone demonstrates stage two (you can make an argument for three but thats makes it more complicated and doesn't change much) morality, it doesn't mean they are still in the pre-conventional stage, but that they are probably forced into it. That is the main factor with me.

But you do bring up a good point. Technically it is immoral to cross the border illegally because immigration laws are not unjust, from my perspective at least, but that doesn't mean that these people are immoral people, just that they are forced into making a decision of breaking a law and doing something immoral and letting their family starve, which can be seen as immoral from other perspectives.

I agree with you that most make the decision because they are choosing self-interest, not seeing their family starve, over breaking the law but there can be other methods.

For a level three example, if society says that feeding your family is more important than following the law, this action would not be seen as immoral, but moral, from that society's perspective. This is something that we might have to look into further as well. It might not just be a conflict of interests, but a conflict of cultural morals as well.

For a level five, one would have to sacrifice to make a point, which you pointed out that no one is doing.

For a level six, I can't think of a situation that would show this by crossing the border.

I never said that our "citizens are dying left and right". What I said was that illegals get free health care while the working poor get nada.

Why do the working poor get nada?

Also, aren't many of the illegal immigrants also working poor?

I don't come from a privileged background, used the military as a way to get my education, and have worked hard all my life. But I do have sympathy for a father who crosses the border with his family so he won't have to watch his children die from dysentary, or watch his daughter become a prostitute for the foreign tourists, and wants to support his aging parents. I appluad him for doing what he needs to do in order to care for his family. He'll work whatever crap job he can get just to feed his kids. There is a huge difference between not having "golden opportunities" like attending college, and being born in an undeveloped state where its a struggle to feed your family, where women and children are trafficked from rural regions to urban centers and tourist areas for sexual exploitation, often through fraudulent offers of employment or through threats of physical violence, where medical care is only for the top tier of the society... the list can go on and on.

The working poor can go to the ER just like the illegals and be treated. How are you getting the working poor get nada but the illegals get free health care?

Because there is a huge class of people here who make to much money to qualify for aid but their jobs do don't pay enough for them to afford insurance or the job does not offer insurance for them or their families.

Illegals don't pay taxes on their income. They claim no income. They get to fall into the lowest class and take advantage of the system in place that should be helping the legal citizens who are poor. The system is filled with holes.

Medicaid.

Paid for by our tax dollars.

I spend a lot of time in Mexico. There is opportunity there as well, it is not one large cesspool with a floating brothel. Is it where I would choose to live? Not most places, no. But there is opportunity. Save the sob story and sympathy card. Every country has the issues you spoke of. And every person has the choice whether to take the hard route or the easy route.

No, They are not US citizens! Thats the point. The services which are designed and allocated for our citizens are being taken by citizens from other countries.

If the services were designed and allocated for your citizens, why are millions of your citizens unable to access them?

i think the point is that resources are being used by people they were unintended for, thus reducing the resources available for the US citizens.