Fascists

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Maybe if I re read your words with an American accent it will sound less bigotted

or if you stepped outside of yourself to view your own arrogant attitude. either one, maybe.

hell of a way to answer when i asked what your experience with the situation was though...
normally it should go something like 1) Q: 2) A: , your method of 1) Q: 2) Insult:
works pretty well too i suppose.

[DanaC]

*nods* ok...maybe I overreacted. I have a lot of contact with asylum seekers in the UK, most of whom are categorised unfairly as bogus ....and many of whom who are genuine yet are still returned home often to deadly situations despite that supposedly being illegal.....There are also a lot of people who use the asylum system because it is sooooo hard to get a work permit for britain unless you happen to come from a desirable country ( like America, or Australia) ....Mostly they wold come in legally if they had been able to. Thats my experience of people who are attempting to emigrate to a better life. To seetheir struggles and to know how hard their lives often are and then see them abused and shunned is something which makes me very very angry and upset.

I understand you would have nothing against them if they found a legal channel in. Perhaps then you arent racist . But the system which makes it so difficult for Mexicans to get in legaly and yet so easy for say....me.....has a racist agenda imo. The trouble is by closing all the legal doors in their faces the system has not stifled their need or desire to escape their grinding poverty trap which allows them no rookm for manouvre in anything let alone changing their country.....These are desperate people usually and so having been denied legal access they still try their chances....If the door had not been slammed in their face you would not be disdainful of them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Man, that was a tough read, Jag. I'm more concerned with the impact on social services and crime, than the labor market. Especially youth (gang) crime.

[lookout123]

here is the thing Dana. it isn't easy for you to get here on a permanent basis either. i've got 2 canadian friends that ahve been trying to get green cards for 4 years. they would be just as wrong to illegally enter and stay as a mexican would.

But the system which makes it so difficult for Mexicans to get in legaly and yet so easy for say....me.....has a racist agenda imo.

it is not racist to say that someone who has a needed work skill gains access before someone with skills that are in less demand. those are the facts of life. the US is not just a big charity, if a person is not adding something substantive to the society, why should we import them. we have enough unemployed and even more underemployed americans.

but this discussion was not about legal imm. it is about those that choose to break the law and cross the border with no right to do so. Bruce said he isn't as concerned about the labor market as he is the social services and criminal aspects. they are all one in the same. they are here illegally so they don't have the ability to demand higher wages or benefits. when push comes to shove, they break other laws (theft, drugs, etc...) or they tap into the welfare system.

[DanaC]

"it is not racist to say that someone who has a needed work skill gains access before someone with skills that are in less demand. those are the facts of life"

It may not seem racist, it may indeed not be racist ....However it is very much slewed in favour of economies which are able to provide enough opportunities for their citizens as to make them easily employable.....Since the countries which are most likely to provide immigrants with suitable working skills are generally the affluent nations, most of which are predominatly white .....Consequently there is a racist effect if not a racist intent to that system.

[lookout123]

Dana. as of midnight tonight you are the sole ruler of Danatown, Inc. it is your town to do with as you wish, but there will be no outside source of support. you start with 50 people in your town and you can let 5 new people in every month. on the first month as the applicants for entry show up you review their resume (you don't meet them face to face, because race should play no part of your decision.)

on your list you see:

11 computer programmers
2 architects
3 lawyers
2 doctors
1 banker
7 teachers
3 athletes
14 landscapers
3 roadworkers
16 construction workers
1 interior designer
4 farmers
6 auto mechanics
3 scientists
1 lumberjim
x
x
x
x
x

you are allowed to pick 5 for the month. next month you will be handed another list. who will you choose to enter this month?

[DanaC]

An interesting proposition however, America is not operating at her limits on immigration. America could if it chose to support all it's citizens with social security safety nets and free medical treatment and still afford to do the same for the number of immigrants which pass across it's borders, illegally or legally.

Having said that ....Looking at that list? I would choose 3 or 4 who were well skilled becuse they'll be able to slot right in and be useful from the start and then 1 or 2 who werent, because if they are trained and supported by Danaland whilst they are getting on their feet there's a strong possibility that they will be dedicated citizens whose children will do me proud :P

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

An interesting proposition however, America is not operating at her limits on immigration. America could if it chose to support all it's citizens with social security safety nets and free medical treatment and still afford to do the same for the number of immigrants which pass across it's borders, illegally or legally

i said nothing of being at your limits. i am talking about responsible growth. or if you prefer a quota system.

please just answer the question.

and by the way - no we can't support everyone with ss nets and free med treatment. do you have any idea what the average person pays in taxes already???

[DanaC]

I suspect that the poor pay too much and the wealthy too little. You could increase your country's revenues and resources by taxing the wealthy to the same proportion of their incomes that the workingclass pay. As it stands the wealthy I suspect pay a much smaller per centage of their overal income in tax.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Having said that ....Looking at that list? I would choose 3 or 4 who were well skilled becuse they'll be able to slot right in and be useful from the start and then 1 or 2 who werent, because if they are trained and supported by Danaland whilst they are getting on their feet there's a strong possibility that they will be dedicated citizens whose children will do me proud :P

exactly, and that is what america does right now. not everyone who is granted access through legal channels is highly skilled. it's nice to see that you acknowledge that you must be choosy and welcome in more individuals who have something to offer immediately.

[Clodfobble]

America could if it chose to support all it's citizens with social security safety nets and free medical treatment and still afford to do the same for the number of immigrants which pass across it's borders, illegally or legally

Sounds like you've got a budget all worked out. How, pray tell, could America do that? Oh right, you're a socialist. You work in theory, not in practice.

[DanaC]

I dont agree that being choosy is a necessity . It is a necessity in the setup you just gave me.....But that isnt how it is in reality. The idea that America cannot afford or sustain that level of immigration is I think disengenuous. It's a huge country and the wealthiest on planet earth

[DanaC]

"Sounds like you've got a budget all worked out. How, pray tell, could America do that? Oh right, you're a socialist. You work in theory, not in practice."
It's easy , you justhave to make the leap and decide that you will tailor your tax policy to suit your country's needs and not the pockets of your elite

[Clodfobble]

I suspect that the poor pay too much and the wealthy too little. You could increase your country's revenues and resources by taxing the wealthy to the same proportion of their incomes that the workingclass pay. As it stands the wealthy I suspect pay a much smaller per centage of their overal income in tax.

You're wrong. The lowest income brackets pay zero taxes. As you move up the ladder, you start to pay a higher percentage of your income. The standard argument goes that the actual DOLLAR AMOUNTS are more important to the lower-income people--because the percentages are staggered. At least you admit you only suspect how it works over here before you start telling us how to fix it.

[DanaC]

What is your highest tax bracket? That is to say, what percentage of their income do they pay in tax?

As an aside, the tax burden on the poor is not just the income tax. In most countries ( including Britain) the poor get hit by flat taxes to a greater extent than the wealthy, that is it represents a greater proportion of their income than it does for the wealthy

Also.....if a country makes proper provsion for it's unemployed or disadvantaged ( paid for by a small raise in the top levels of tax ) it usually pays dividends later. If people are afforded a small income to assist them they spend that income in shops rather than them surviving on a combination of food stamps and crime and disappearing off into the grey economy which is beyond the taxation system and therefore leads to a net loss for the economy. If people are given adequate assistance they are less likely to drift into debilitating depressions and/or dig themselves a hole they cant get out of and are therefore more likely to become fully contributing members of society at a later stage, thereby more than covering the costs incurred in assiting them. They are less likely to fail and therefore more likely to be able to raise their children in such a way that their children may take full advantage of the many opportunities their country can offer them, thereby contributing to their society to such a level as to offset the costs of their earlier care.

I do think it makes very little economic sense to allow large numbers of the populace drift into extreme poverty and crime and then spend a small fortune housing them in prisons and further alienating them from the society to which they could have been contributing, had they been given enough support during the lean times to allow them to get on their feet rather than falling into criminality out of poverty and a lack of hope or inclusion