Ending God's Tax Exempt Status

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by queequeger

How is that incorrect? A major part of the conservative and neoconservative ideal is upholding the law and reverence fot the legal system.

My point is that the terms "Conservative" and now "Neoconservative" are not well defined. Therefore it is difficult to make generalizations about what one group over another thinks or how they will act.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Illegal aliens use of our social systems have no effect on the level of taxes we pay. But the use of the systems by illegals does in fact decrease resoources that would have otherwise been available to legal citizens, the only ones that should be eligible for it, except in the case of emergency, and even then their governments should pay the bill not the US taxpayer.

So you are saying that there is a limited number of resources in government programs and that if there is a bigger demand then the current supply, the government wouldn't up the supply?

Well you should be cautious to make statements like, "which goes against most conservative's morality system". That is an incorrect assumption.

Can you explain? Everytime I've argued this subject it has also gone to how the illegal immigrants have broken the law so they shouldn't get government help. That goes down to morality nine times out of ten.

Originally Posted by queequeger

I try to avoid the concepts of right and wrong as often as possible, because it so difficult to tell if those morals even exist. Raising has so much to do with it.

I am basically where you are. I am a firm believer that morality is purely subjective and the base of everyone's morality can be found in society. You can find a society that has has embraced almost everything that we consider immoral in western society (cannibalism, slavery, infanticide, pedophilia, etc) besides obvious morals that would be too forced or those that would doom the society.

I try to make decisions involving other people based solely on the net gain of all involved instead of 'who's right.'

Yeah, even though it is nearly impossible to actually follow I try to make big decisions on what is best for society or the people around me in contrast to my own self-interests and find out what is more important and consequences of each.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

So you are saying that there is a limited number of resources in government programs and that if there is a bigger demand then the current supply, the government wouldn't up the supply?


Can you explain? Everytime I've argued this subject it has also gone to how the illegal immigrants have broken the law so they shouldn't get government help. That goes down to morality nine times out of ten.

The social programs ingrained in our governmental system. They are funded at certain levels, what ever that may be, long in advance of expenditure. The system gets X dollars and they have to make the program work with those dollars. There are no more. The supply is not "uped" because they have more need, they just do more with less. Everyone suffers because of it. Imagine, and I know this could never happen, if we suddenly removed all illegal’s from the system there would be much more for the legal citizens to have and the system would not be so taxed. Well until Congress found out and then they would just decrease the spending and use the money somewhere else.

Immigration laws are not morality based IMHO.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The social programs ingrained in our governmental system. They are funded at certain levels, what ever that may be, long in advance of expenditure. The system gets X dollars and they have to make the program work with those dollars. There are no more. The supply is not "uped" because they have more need, they just do more with less. Everyone suffers because of it. Imagine, and I know this could never happen, if we suddenly removed all illegal’s from the system there would be much more for the legal citizens to have and the system would not be so taxed. Well until Congress found out and then they would just decrease the spending and use the money somewhere else.

Ok, that makes more sense.

Immigration laws are not morality based IMHO.

I am not talking about the actual laws, but the fact that illegal immigrants break them. Some people say it is justified, conservatives usually say it isn't justified.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by quequeger

What happens is I pay for Medicaid, knowing that when I DO need it, many workers younger than I will willingly pay for it. And if I never need it, I'm happy to pay so others can use it. Right now, about 13 percent of the country is enrolled in Medicaid whereas most of those are working pay. So even if one in ten immigrants do fit into that lazy stereotype (which they don't), we still maintain the balance.

You are confused. Medicare is for the elderly, and you may use it someday, assuming it is even still around (at current rates, the program is already estimated to go bankrupt in another decade or so.) Medicaid is for the poor, and you are almost certain to never be that poor. It's not about being lazy. The guy who mows my lawn works really freaking hard, and I would never in a million years call him lazy--but guess what? He is poor. And being self-employed, his wife and kids are either on Medicaid or nothing. And he's not the immigrant; his parents were. They were even poorer. His family had the best attitude we could hope for from immigrants, but success takes time. His children will probably not be on government assistance as adults--so two generations, or about 40 years.

All of which is great, I do sincerely believe we need people like that coming into our country, and the current state of immigration laws encourages the "anchor baby" people and not the hard-working people. Fully open borders is definitely not the answer--a better process for determining who gets to come in, and a better process for keeping out the ones we've decided don't get to come in, is.

[queequeger]

I suggest you talk to Luisa, in the Philippines, to see how difficult and expensive it is to just apply to come here under the current system. That, with the odds of making it being so low, 10 million (your number) shows how many would come with no restrictions.

That's anecdotal. I could easily provide other stories of individuals to support my claim. I was asking for some sort of actual evidence of so many people wanting to come here.

And please, calm down the name calling and personal insults. All you do with things like that is make enemies of people who hold no ill will toward you.

As long as our economy can handle the rising number of immigrants, I don't mind open border policies, but you have to make sure that you can lock down immigration if it does become a problem because over population is one of, if not the worse thing that can happen to a country.

And this is a system I can get behind. My point (which might be why I've just been called a girl's name) is that acting purely out of self interest with no thought to the plights of others is beneath us (or should be). I gladly give to those in need, though I would not give my whole paycheck. So, I think my caveat of 'let's try 8 million to start, and work from there' would be a fine idea. Because after all, if the US collapses that ain't helping anyone, right?

And yeah, it historically takes 2-3 generations for an immigrant family to actually integrate into our society. All part of the plan, I think.

I don't think any choice is right or wrong, since different conclusions fits better depending on the person.

And I really like this way of looking at things, and have a similar one. I try to avoid the concepts of right and wrong as often as possible, because it so difficult to tell if those morals even exist. Raising has so much to do with it. I try to make decisions involving other people based solely on the net gain of all involved instead of 'who's right.'

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by queequeger

That's anecdotal. I could easily provide other stories of individuals to support my claim. I was asking for some sort of actual evidence of so many people wanting to come here.

Anecdotal? Someone who's actually delt with the system and knows how expensive and difficult it is and how bad the odds are after going to that expense and bullshit? My point is 10 million (your number) go through all that to try to get here. With no barrier except the cost of transportation, easily 10 times that many would on their way.

And please, calm down the name calling and personal insults. All you do with things like that is make enemies of people who hold no ill will toward you.

Unless you're offering to suck my dick, I have enough friends, thank you.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by queequeger

And yeah, it historically takes 2-3 generations for an immigrant family to actually integrate into our society. All part of the plan, I think.

Again, you are misunderstanding a statistic. "Integrate" in this case refers to language and cultural assimilation. That takes at least 2-3 generations whether the person is a poor migrant fruit picker or a university-trained engineer making $80,000 a year. But the latter isn't a drain on social services, and it's why white-collar immigrants don't have nearly the hard time as poor immigrants do. Immigration is not that hard at all if you can prove you have skills we need.

* To Qualify for the H1B Visa Program, you must work in a 'specialty occupation':
The core Specialty Occupations include: IT, Computing, Finance, Accounting, Banking, Marketing, Advertising, PR, Sales, Recruiting, Engineering (all types), Teaching, HealthCare/Medical, Legal, Lawyers, Networking, Telecoms, Business, Management.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Again, you are misunderstanding a statistic. "Integrate" in this case refers to language and cultural assimilation. That takes at least 2-3 generations whether the person is a poor migrant fruit picker or a university-trained engineer making $80,000 a year. But the latter isn't a drain on social services, and it's why white-collar immigrants don't have nearly the hard time as poor immigrants do. Immigration is not that hard at all if you can prove you have skills we need.

Accepted, now is this fact for or against more accepting immigration laws?

[piercehawkeye45]

I take conservative as usually low government involvement and tend to holds more traditional viewpoints.

Conservatives don't take it as a moral issue, they usually take one side of the moral issue, which seems to be one part of the immigration situation. Right now, the law says that an immigrant can not just cross a border without registering. Usually conservatives use the argument that they have broken the law,as one of their arguments. The justification of breaking laws comes down to a moral issue? When is it justified to break a law and when is it not? Usually liberals say breaking the law is justified or that we can not just deport them and usually conservatives so that breaking the law is not justified so we these people should be punished or they should not receive the services that legal immigrants get because they broke the law.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Accepted, now is this fact for or against more accepting immigration laws?

Against, for the most part. The people who contribute here and now have a relatively easy time getting in. The people who want to make a better life for themselves have a harder time because A.) there are many, many more of them and B.) they cannot contribute as much or as soon. I think a guest worker program is reasonable, because if there are jobs available then obviously someone is more than welcome to fill that job. But deportation (of those people we already know are not working) is a joke, currently.

I forget which politician was recently touting the idea, but I think doing away with the anchor baby law would go a long way towards solving the problem.

[queequeger]

So do you think that the change made to the law should be that if an illegal immigrant has a child we should deport the whole family, child included, meaning the parent must be a citizen in order to gain citizenship? Or do you think we should deport the parents and put the kids up for adoption?

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I forget which politician was recently touting the idea, but I think doing away with the anchor baby law would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Anchor baby law? You must mean the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Clodfobble]

I think a baby that happens to be born within our borders should not automatically be granted citizenship. I think we should deport the parents or not, depending only on the status of the parents, and if they have kids, of course their kids go with them. If the parents gain citizenship, then their minor children should be fast-tracked for citizenship, as foreign spouses of citizens are now.

[bluecuracao]

Bruce, don't make us start a thread about you.