Ending God's Tax Exempt Status

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Please, support your claim. 10 million was a number (a high number) assumed based on the average number of people that was estimated applied. If you just assume that 'only those that really really think they can make it' applied, why not just pull any number out of your hat? How about there are 500 million that would apply if we opened our borders? How about a billion? I bet the entire population of China would apply.

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.

My argument that most people like where they live doesn't hold water? Based on the fact that every year nearly .002% of the globe applies for their stake in the greatest place on the planet? I can see how I was wrong to think they didn't have penis envy.

So the 7 million people that have starved to death, so far this year, would not have rather been here? The millions of people living in refugee camps would rather not of been here? The billions living in eternal poverty and draconian governments, would rather not be here? Grow up.

If you're not acting out of love, don't act at all. So, even if they DO count as a 'burden' on our economy, If I have to pay some extra taxes to support some millions of people having a better life, and doing what they find most enjoyable... well shucks I guess I'll just wait to buy that TV that costs the same as some people's yearly salary.

Well, Pollyanna that's just wonderful. I'm glad you're so happy spending my money.

[piercehawkeye45]

Queequeger, I agree with a lot of what you say but I diagree with one point.

he more people are in an economy, the more jobs there are.

This is only true when an economy can grow with the rate of rising population growth. Take Rwanda for example, they experienced massive population growth but their economy couldn't keep up with the rising number of people, and they rose over the tolerable population limit, along with other political factors, and genocide broke out.

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.

Unless someone can show me otherwise, I still stand by the opinion that 99% of this planet is comprised of good people, and that includes every country.

You are going into philosophy on this one. This question has bothered me a lot until a month or so ago. When I was a little kid, I used to think that people were inherently good, then when I got into high school and had a rough spot in my life, I switched to thinking that people were inherited bad, then when I got out of high school and got my life back on track I switched to people are inherently neutral and are just products of their genetics and more importantly, social factors. When I look back, I realized that the only difference was my perspective of people and how they acted. When I thought people were good, I usually saw the the good things, when I thought people were bad, I usually saw the bad things, when I thought people were neutral, I usually saw conformity.

So now, I don't really think that people are inherently anything since three people can look at the same event in three different perspectives and come out with three different outcomes of humanity. I don't think any choice is right or wrong, since different conclusions fits better depending on the person.

For this situation I do agree with you though. People do try to make the best for themselves, so I doubt millions of immigrants would come to a country just to live as an illegal leaching off the system. Since it is such a very tough life as an illegal immigrant and many immigrants do leave the US when they can't find a job, I am guessing that there is delusional idea that America is a great place to live a stable life just like the delusional idea that California was a stable place to live in the Great Depression. Once they get here, they just try to make the best for themselves, whether that means working 90 hour weeks on less than minimum wage with a constant threat of being deported or receiving welfare. There is no good or bad about it, just self-interest that tends to conflict with conservative's self-interest.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You are going into philosophy on this one. This question has bothered me a lot until a month or so ago. When I was a little kid, I used to think that people were inherently good, then when I got into high school and had a rough spot in my life, I switched to thinking that people were inherited bad, then when I got out of high school and got my life back on track I switched to people are inherently neutral and are just products of their genetics and more importantly, social factors. When I look back, I realized that the only difference was my perspective of people and how they acted. When I thought people were good, I usually saw the the good things, when I thought people were bad, I usually saw the bad things, when I thought people were neutral, I usually saw conformity.

So now, I don't really think that people are inherently anything since three people can look at the same event in three different perspectives and come out with three different outcomes of humanity. I don't think any choice is right or wrong, since different conclusions fits better depending on the person.

Insightful post.

For this situation I do agree with you though. People do try to make the best for themselves, so I doubt millions of immigrants would come to a country just to live as an illegal leaching off the system. Since it is such a very tough life as an illegal immigrant and many immigrants do leave the US when they can't find a job, I am guessing that there is delusional idea that America is a great place to live a stable life just like the delusional idea that California was a stable place to live in the Great Depression. Once they get here, they just try to make the best for themselves, whether that means working 90 hour weeks on less than minimum wage with a constant threat of being deported or receiving welfare. There is no good or bad about it, just self-interest that tends to conflict with conservative's self-interest.

I think you are off base here. They are leaching off the system in many ways but contributing in ways as well. And I agree that it is all about self interest. I am not quite sure what you mean in your last bit, "just self-interest that tends to conflict with [b](a) conservative's self-interest. Do you mean to imply that a conservative thinks that the self interest of the illegal alien conflicts with theirs?

[piercehawkeye45]

Yes, because sometimes the self-interest of the illegal immigrants is to use government sponsored programs and conservatives self-interest is usually to not have the government tax the people.

Conservatives want low taxes, so by illegals using government sponsored programs, they are raising the taxes, going against conservative's interests. And sometimes an illegal alien's best interest is to use government sponsored programs (health care, education, welfare), so there is a clear paradox. This conflict of interests is intensified by the illegal part, which goes against most conservative's morality system, which just adds fuel to the fire.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yes, because sometimes the self-interest of the illegal immigrants is to use government sponsored programs and conservatives self-interest is usually to not have the government tax the people. Conservatives want low taxes, so by illegals using government sponsored programs, they are raising the taxes, going against conservative's interests. And sometimes an illegal alien's best interest is to use government sponsored programs (health care, education, welfare), so there is a clear paradox.

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.

This conflict of interests is intensified by the illegal part, which goes against most conservative's morality system, which just adds fuel to the fire.

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

[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.'

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

Define conservative in your own words.

Well explain how is it that you believe that "conservatives" think it is a moral issue.

[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?