American Excess

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

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.'

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

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

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.

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.

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.'

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.

[lookout123]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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).

[regular.joe]

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.

[DanaC]

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.

Very well put Joe.

[lookout123]

Have you ever sped?

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?

do you think we should categorize all illegal immigrants as criminals?

Uh, yes? What else would you call someone who lives each and every day intentionally breaking the law?

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.

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 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).

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.

Regular.JoeAmong 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....

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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.

[lookout123]

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?

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

[lookout123]

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?

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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.

[lookout123]

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.

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?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

That is, however, not the same as legal and illegal.

Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

You would be a criminal, by definition. The other two questions (right or wrong, and worthy of punishment) are more up in the air.

[lookout123]

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.