Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

Rate this topic


Capleton

Recommended Posts

It would still be an issue, perhaps an even stronger one. People are going to go where life is better. If welfare and minimum wage laws were eliminated, how much better of a place to live would America be? Lots. And you think this would keep people away? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would still be an issue, perhaps an even stronger one. People are going to go where life is better. If welfare and minimum wage laws were eliminated, how much better of a place to live would America be? Lots. And you think this would keep people away? <_<

An important difference would be the type of people you generally attract. If all the free lunches that I have to pay for were eliminated the only incentive for coming here would be the oppurtunity to work in a free market which would be perfectly acceptable. Immigrants would have the same cost of living and income requirements of any citizen and would harm me in know way. However, when you can count on free medical care, free schools, free food, and free housing in addition to the oppurtunity to work in a country that is 41% capitalist, 38% fascist, and 21% socialist(yes, I just made those figures up) then you attract another sort of person.

The idea isn't to eliminate people coming here. That can cause no damage to current residents. No rational individual would be opposed to immigration, per se. What I and others advocate is having them go through proper legal channels(Like I would have to going anywhere else) and not providing them with anything at my expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, when you can count on free medical care, free schools, free food, and free housing in addition to the oppurtunity to work in a country that is 41% capitalist, 38% fascist, and 21% socialist(yes, I just made those figures up) then you attract another sort of person.
I don't see the evidence for that -- this smells like rationalism. Just because you can imagine that increases in welfare over the past 40 or so years could lead to an increase in the number of welfare slugs just waiting for a free ride does not mean that has been an actual increase in such people coming here. Professionally speaking, I'm fairly well acquainted with a number of foreigners from third world (and worse) countries coming here, and not a single one of them is a welfare bum. What all Objectivists advocate is the instant elimination of welfare and taxation, and also revocation of any irrational quota type restrictions on immigration, so that proper legal channels would amount to nothing more than checking whether the person is a known terrorists or criminals, so that the law that immigrants are required to obey is rational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professionally speaking, I'm fairly well acquainted with a number of foreigners from third world (and worse) countries coming here, and not a single one of them is a welfare bum.
I second this, as being a foreigner myself. I will elaborate a bit more. This is possibly something DavidOdden wasn't 100% sure of, so he didn't state it out loud. But I will. <_<

Those who come to USA from "lesser" countries (i.e. lesser quality of life, I define it in $) know what they are coming here for. Why?

1. They have grown up in a different place then USA. In USA you can be a slack-off/dumb/lazy, and still manage to easily survive by having some luckluster job, which amazingly will pay enough to feed yourself and for the roof over your head.

2. Those who come to USA from "lesser" countries, have seen with their own eyes and minds that being a slacker in their country leads to complete poverty or doing some illegal business (thugs, drugs, etc. which is a bad life anyway in those countries), so these people have already learned that it takes something to make something.

3. Once they realise that and somehow get a chance to come to USA, which is very small chance for anyone other than for lesser countries bordering USA by land, they see how much stuff they suddenly can do. What does that mean? I know I need to explain this as it probably slips by many minds. It means that in lesser country X, your effort would give you 1.0 return, while that same effort in USA will give you 100.0+ and more. This is something that it's hard to shrug off for one's mind.

Thus, one's mind comes to conclusion: work and get that boosted return for your effort. As one friend of mine said: "You can have a good life in America." Being a welfare bum is simply not an option.

P.S. That said, welfare needs to go, I will not have my effort spent for somebody's laziness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What all Objectivists advocate is the instant elimination of welfare and taxation, and also revocation of any irrational quota type restrictions on immigration...
Oh, man, don't get me started on this. <_<

----

Welcome to the land of the greencard and ... your race!

"Who are you and what is your race/ethnicity? You say your grand-grand-grandma was jewish? Well, why don't you say so right from the start, here's a free one for you!"

"Oh, you are from Eastern Europe and NOT Jewish? Eh, sorry, I don't think our quota is large enough for another one of you. What is that? America is not racist. We simply have a plan of quotas of mainly made up numbers for each race and country. What is it? No, it's not your fault you were born there, but it matters here. OK? Next!"

----

You would think it would make sense to anyone who is capable of thinking that allowing people to come in means you are taking away brains from the rest of the world. USA gets another smart engineer, the rest of the world loses one. Now, this person can go straight to the Silicon Valley and contribute to the power of American thought and money. But no. Or more cheep labor for "low" jobs.

P.S. The beginning of this thread has an awesome link explaining some of the fears and doubts about open immigration. But from the posts I've read here some just didn't read it. And you should.

EDIT: forgot to place 'not'

(Minor spelling correction "quote"-->"quota" -sNerd)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the evidence for that -- this smells like rationalism. Just because you can imagine that increases in welfare over the past 40 or so years could lead to an increase in the number of welfare slugs just waiting for a free ride does not mean that has been an actual increase in such people coming here. Professionally speaking, I'm fairly well acquainted with a number of foreigners from third world (and worse) countries coming here, and not a single one of them is a welfare bum. What all Objectivists advocate is the instant elimination of welfare and taxation, and also revocation of any irrational quota type restrictions on immigration, so that proper legal channels would amount to nothing more than checking whether the person is a known terrorists or criminals, so that the law that immigrants are required to obey is rational.

Ouch...Smells? like Rationalism? No need to be ornry. I am also "professionally acquainted" with a large number of foreigners who are here illegally (which, I'll point out, are the particualar types being dscussed in this thread) and I have known dozens personally who take as much advantage of the system as they can(welfare bums). So if you want to call my first hand experience rationalism, feel free. I know what I know. And further, even a precursory inquiry into the costs of benefits paid by the government for illegal immigrants vs the amount paid in taxes by them will corroberate my view. Additionally it is obvious to me that when people have an oppurtunity to get "free stuff" of any kind, very, very few refuse it. Especially those who are less wealthy and "need" it, which illegal immigrants tend to be.

I agree that quotas on immigration are improper and probably immoral, in the abstract. But, currently, to even consider removing them while maintaining our current welfare state is to consider economic suicide. Things have to be fixed in the right order. End the socialist nonsense first then try to have an open immigration policy. The other way around is clearly not in my or any other americans best interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have been "professionally aquainted" with a good number of illegals, and by and large they were the hardest working people I had working for me and did not dip into any welfare benefits as they were afraid to even try for fear of deporting. So what do I do with my version of I know what I know? There comes a point in time where the only way we're going to get rid of the welfare system is to stop trying to save it. Quotas are immoral in the first place, and if your arguing in favor of an immoral measure so the welfare system doesn't go bankrupt, you're arguing in favor of continuing the welfare system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, violating a person's right to move and live freely is a violations of his rights, just as taxation is: neither form of rights-violation should exist in a rational society. So obviously, we want to eliminate both kinds of rights-violations, and there is no logical dependency between letting foreigners into the country and ending taxation.

There is no "probably immoral" or "in the abstract" about it: immigration restrictions are concretely immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do I do with my version of I know what I know?

Well you have to try to figure out why your version where all illegal immigrants are hardworking honest folks that would never accept government handouts are costing the state of california's medicaid program alone $5 Billion dollars/ year.

" There comes a point in time where the only way we're going to get rid of the welfare system is to stop trying to save it. Quotas are immoral in the first place, and if your arguing in favor of an immoral measure so the welfare system doesn't go bankrupt, you're arguing in favor of continuing the welfare system."

Then our disagreement seems to come down to a question of whether or not our system can be save. On a bad day, I would agree with you. In fact, I'd go one further and suggest that we find out what social programs the rest of the world has in place and fund all of them. Then encourage the government to socialize medicine, regulate the internet, and double the size of the FDA. That way we could be bankrupt in six months. On a better day, I like to think that the direction this country has been moving for the last century could be reversed without having to suffer the devastation of what would become a worldwide depression.

If you knew me, you would be aware that I'd be the last person on the planet to be in favor of continuing the welfare system. I am just aware of how humans in general respond to the notion of the unearned. Walk down the street in a crowded area and hand how $10 bills. Count what percentage of people turn them down. Then extrapolate that percentage to 500,000 people/ year who know that if they get across the border and acquire a fake ID and SS number they will immediately get free medical care and free school for their kids and if they pop out another child while here, then they can get all the other stuff while paying virtually nothing in taxes. Ask the illegal's that work for you where they or their kids go when their sick or hurt. Probably a hospital. If they have insurance that you are providing then great...but be aware that that makes your employees the exceptions as most do not.

At any rate, violating a person's right to move and live freely is a violations of his rights, just as taxation is: neither form of rights-violation should exist in a rational society. So obviously, we want to eliminate both kinds of rights-violations, and there is no logical dependency between letting foreigners into the country and ending taxation.

There is no "probably immoral" or "in the abstract" about it: immigration restrictions are concretely immoral.

It is, but it is not my job to insure the rights of people living elsewhere. Our government is not responsible for ensuring the rights of anyone but it's own citizens.

And yes, I would like both eliminated. But why encourage a problem. If we already let the government steal $4 Trillion dollars/ Year, why try to raise it to $8 Trillion? To me, this is tantamount to encouraging the creation of more government programs as I mentioned in my post above. I don't believe that it benefits me in any longterm way to encourage the growth of government programs any more then it does to start new ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why encourage a problem. If we already let the government steal $4 Trillion dollars/ Year, why try to raise it to $8 Trillion?
I am certainly not encouragng it or advocating raising taxation. I'm advocating ending welfare and eliminating taxation; ultimately I advocate repealing the immoral immigration restrictions but just as you would apparently accept the status quo continuation of the current welfare state over expanding the welfare state, I would accept the status quo of ignoring peaceful and hard-working illegal immigrants over more strenuous enforcement of the existing immoral policy. Restricting immigration, especially people who are escaping from collectivist dictatorships which take people's lives and property, is tantamount to the endorsement of those dictatorships. So I saw your tantamount, and raised you a tantamount. Plus, two wrongs don't make a right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you have to try to figure out why your version where all illegal immigrants are hardworking honest folks that would never accept government handouts are costing the state of california's medicaid program alone $5 Billion dollars/ year.

Well find me the numbers that shows that 5 billion is all going to illegals. I know you can't. You totally missed my point which is the "in thing" now to white wash all illegals as welfare grubbing/ raza "give us back California" radicals as defense of the immigration quotas. Compromise with an immoral system for short-term gain only gains even more long-term destruction. Let the welfare system find where it's wrong, don't continue to feed it. This move to try and sustain the welfare system is the same thing that kept Dagny out of the Gultch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well find me the numbers that shows that 5 billion is all going to illegals. I know you can't.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...02115-6766r.htm

"Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday. "

Always need to be careful with words like "can't".

"You totally missed my point which is the "in thing" now to white wash all illegals as welfare grubbing/ raza "give us back California" radicals as defense of the immigration quotas. Compromise with an immoral system for short-term gain only gains even more long-term destruction. Let the welfare system find where it's wrong, don't continue to feed it. This move to try and sustain the welfare system is the same thing that kept Dagny out of the Gultch."

I can't help but to continue to feed it. I only have a couple guns...not nearly enough to take on the IRS. And as long as more and more people clamor for more and more unearned wealth, they'll take more and more from me. So explain to me why it would be in my longterm rational best interests to invite people in who are only exacerbating the problem. The only one I see is heavily dependent on pessimism.

I am certainly not encouragng it or advocating raising taxation. I'm advocating ending welfare and eliminating taxation; ultimately I advocate repealing the immoral immigration restrictions but just as you would apparently accept the status quo continuation of the current welfare state over expanding the welfare state, I would accept the status quo of ignoring peaceful and hard-working illegal immigrants over more strenuous enforcement of the existing immoral policy.

I see what your saying, David, and as a seperate issue, I would agree. The problem is that the two issues are conected when viewed in their actual contexts. To increase or permit illegal immigration is to expand the welfare state.

"Restricting immigration, especially people who are escaping from collectivist dictatorships which take people's lives and property, is tantamount to the endorsement of those dictatorships. So I saw your tantamount, and raised you a tantamount. Plus, two wrongs don't make a right."

I don't believe that they make up a majority of the illegal immigrants. As I understand it, people living under oppressive regimes are able to get citizenship here easier then otherwise. And even if they do make of a sizable percentage, while I feel for them and wish them all the best, it is not my duty to ensure their survival, property, liberty, success, or happiness. And unfortunately we live in a country that ties their immigration and "best interests" to my wallet.

"There can be no conflict of interest between rational men." ...Except after force has been introduced into the equation which it has.

The short-term solution (short of removing welfare) to lessening the number of immigrants on welfare is to legalize immigration and not give welfare to immigrants whose primary aim is to mooch.

I agree with that. If there was some sort of moratorium on the use of government services you would be more likely to get the ones who truly only want to work. I find that to be a very satisfactory short term solution.

A secondary benefit of this would be that it would simultaneously solve the issue of downward pressure on wages. If they had to pay for medical care and whatnot, they would have to demand higher wages to pay for them selves. Currently these free things serve to essentially subsidize certain industry's payroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...02115-6766r.htm

"Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday. "

Always need to be careful with words like "can't".

Hahaha, you're going to back yourself with a FAIR report?? Ok, for humors sake, lets look at the FAIR report in question FAIR report.

Now according to this report, everything is an estimate. That 10.5 billion is estimated numbers, where did they derive those numbers? The Washington times paper has down 7.7 billion for education, yet the FAIR report says 2.2 billion and even that is for children of illegals, it does not say if all those kids are illegal themselves. If the jails are spending a billion a year, which the report does not include, then under the immigration laws I'm fine with, they should be deported. Quotas do nothing for or against that. Believe if you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha, you're going to back yourself with a FAIR report?? Ok, for humors sake, lets look at the FAIR report in question FAIR report.

Now according to this report, everything is an estimate. That 10.5 billion is estimated numbers, where did they derive those numbers? The Washington times paper has down 7.7 billion for education, yet the FAIR report says 2.2 billion and even that is for children of illegals, it does not say if all those kids are illegal themselves. If the jails are spending a billion a year, which the report does not include, then under the immigration laws I'm fine with, they should be deported. Quotas do nothing for or against that. Believe if you wish.

I apologize but I don't see the humor. If it is ad hominem sarcasm I do not appreciate it. I am unfamiliar with FAIR. I thought that since the washington post is a pretty liberal rag, the fact that they printed those numbers would indicate that they were at least fair if not lowball. If FAIR is an organization prone to inaccuarate reporting, you can simply inform me of that. Laughing me down is not something I take to be a mature response to an honest debate. I will be happy to look at any numbers you can provide which you consider to be more objective. In fact I would be excited to learn that as a whole they were not an economic drain and paid in at least as much as they take out. I could then in good concious hire them for significantly lower pay.

In response to your staements, of course they are estimates. Not very easy to get accurate numbers on people that are off the grid by definition. But if you talk to folks who live or have lived on our southern border, the million people a year number is very believable as they watch droves walk across their property(tresspassing illegally)everyday.

I of course cannot answer for any discrepencies between the actual report and the article. I guess anyone can make a typo. In fact I noticed that here http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ca_costs.pdf?docID=141

they list $3.2 billion as the cost of educating illegals and $4.5 billion as the cost of educating the children of illegals. Not the 2.2 billion you mention above. But truly those details of whether it is 2.2 or 3.2 billion are somewhat unimportant. What is important is that it's a hell of a lot and is likely to increase dramatically over the next 40 years. Even at the 2.2 billion you wrote...consider that that is 2,200 millions of dollars. So that is the equivelent of taking the live savings of 2,200 successful people and obliterating it for those who did not earn it every year. I take issue with anyone advocating something that results in destruction of that magnitude. And please keep in mind that this amount excludes many other programs, all 49 other states as well as city and federal expenditures-I shudder to think what that would add up to. So how many top notch producers need to be sacrificed to give these poor people a chance?

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, people living under oppressive regimes are able to get citizenship here easier then otherwise.
If you can prove that you have made politically dangerous statements that will lead to persecution, and if the government has listed the regime on the blacklist. That used to be standard for communist countries, but that is only applicable to a tiny handful of the systematically rights-denying regimes out there, and usually just sporadically. It basically only applies to Boznia, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq and Iran

The bottom line is that advocating the legal exclusion of foreigners from my country is an initiation of force against me and my economic interests, which takes higher priority in my set of concerns than some problem that the loons in California have saddled themselves with, with their welfare utopia. I wish the Californians all the best, but it is not my duty to ensure their survival, property, liberty, success, or happiness at my own expense, especially when they have created their own welfare state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can prove that you have made politically dangerous statements that will lead to persecution, and if the government has listed the regime on the blacklist. That used to be standard for communist countries, but that is only applicable to a tiny handful of the systematically rights-denying regimes out there, and usually just sporadically. It basically only applies to Boznia, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq and Iran

Ok that makes sense. If you tried to make it applicable to any rights denying countries that wouldpretty much be all of them.

"The bottom line is that advocating the legal exclusion of foreigners from my country is an initiation of force against me and my economic interests, which takes higher priority in my set of concerns than some problem that the loons in California have saddled themselves with, with their welfare utopia. I wish the Californians all the best, but it is not my duty to ensure their survival, property, liberty, success, or happiness at my own expense, especially when they have created their own welfare state."

The thing is, these problems affect all states and the federal government as well. The problem is spreading and will spread. California, arizona and texas are just closest and have taken the first hit.

How is it an initiation of force. I don't follow your reasoning.

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, these problems affect all states and the federal government as well. The problem is spreading and will spread. California, arizona and texas are just closest and have taken the first hit.
I may have been mistaken, in that I thought California allowed illegal immigrants general access to welfare state benefits, but now I think that isn't the case -- Generally, illegal immigrants are ineligible for publish assistance. If California was dumb enough to pass a law extending free benefits to illegal immigrants, that is their fault; or if they are stupid enough to ignore their own law (which at least existed 10 years ago), they are to blame.
How is it an initiation of force. I don't follow your reasoning.
The government uses the threat of force to prevent me from employing people who I actually need to hire, and is now threatening to apply an even higher level of force against me personally. We are talking about guns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have been mistaken, in that I thought California allowed illegal immigrants general access to welfare state benefits, but now I think that isn't the case -- Generally, illegal immigrants are ineligible for publish assistance. If California was dumb enough to pass a law extending free benefits to illegal immigrants, that is their fault; or if they are stupid enough to ignore their own law (which at least existed 10 years ago), they are to blame.The government uses the threat of force to prevent me from employing people who I actually need to hire, and is now threatening to apply an even higher level of force against me personally. We are talking about guns.

I see. So there lies our conflict of interest. If they are let into the country and given amnesty or whatever and you hire them, I get to pay their medical bills or I see guns. If we do not let them stay and crackdown on enforcement and you hire them then you see guns. The issue is kinda like a hot potato. "You deal with the government...no I don't want it, you deal with the government....no i don't want it...."

Isn't that unfortunate how the government can manufacturer conflict all the way down to us by pointing guns in our general direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I may have been mistaken, in that I thought California allowed illegal immigrants general access to welfare state benefits, but now I think that isn't the case -- Generally, illegal immigrants are ineligible for publish assistance. If California was dumb enough to pass a law extending free benefits to illegal immigrants, that is their fault; or if they are stupid enough to ignore their own law (which at least existed 10 years ago), they are to blame."

You are not entirely mistaken. They are eligible for something but not others. That report I referenced above outlines some of it. The things they are eligible for are significant. And it truly is not only in california. I have lived and worked there as well as colorado and texas and it applies in those places as well though the quantities are not quite as high.

Regarding your issue you don't have much to worry about yet. Last year in the entire US a total os 3 employers were prosecuted for hiring illegals. So the odds are not high yet. To be clear, I do not think it is the responsibility of business to sort out this mess and don't think they ought to be required to perform background checks and what not. That is the job of the government which ought to be more busy guarding the border then stealing our cookies. I don't believe for a minute that they could not keep out most if not all of the people entering illegally.

If they do "crack down on employers" as many advocate it will in all probability be a horrible solution that makes the problems worse. That of course is the governments speciality so I have little doubt that that is what will occur if anything changes. I can't wait to be in that pickle where if I wrongfully deny someone a job I am sued for discrimination and if I give them a job and they turn out to be illegal I am fined by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that unfortunate how the government can manufacturer conflict all the way down to us by pointing guns in our general direction?
It's worse than unfortunate: the consequences are living proof that irrational government is hardly better than anarchy. And it it the central principle which the power-seekers live by -- create conflict and thus justify their use of force to manage the conflict.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize but I don't see the humor. If it is ad hominem sarcasm I do not appreciate it. I am unfamiliar with FAIR. I thought that since the washington post is a pretty liberal rag, the fact that they printed those numbers would indicate that they were at least fair if not lowball. If FAIR is an organization prone to inaccuarate reporting, you can simply inform me of that. Laughing me down is not something I take to be a mature response to an honest debate. I will be happy to look at any numbers you can provide which you consider to be more objective. In fact I would be excited to learn that as a whole they were not an economic drain and paid in at least as much as they take out. I could then in good concious hire them for significantly lower pay.

I laughed because using FAIR to back up an anti-immigration stance is like using one of the radical La Raza group reports to say immigrants should be allowed to stay. You are the one making the claim they are draining the economy, it is your burden to prove it. You come forward with numbers without doing any sort of checking to see if the numbers are accurate and present them as proof. When I said I knew you can not come up with the numbers it wasn't because numbers are out there, it's because all they can be is guesstimates and the numbers will swing in favor of which ever group did the study.

If you want to use the cost of Illegal immigrants as a stance for trying to say they need to be kicked out, come up with the numbers that shows that illegals are a much higher percentage of users of the welfare system than non-illegals. Then come up with numbers that show how much those illegals are pumping back into the tax system to begin to offset those costs. Then come up with numbers that would show how much more they would pump into the tax system if they were allowed to pay income tax which immigration policy denies them. I don't disagree that illegal immigrants cost the tax payers some money, just as I don't disagree that natural born citizens cost tax payers money. What I disagree with is the fact that illegals cost us more, that they are here to simply sponge money off the system, and they are the ones that will bankrupt the economy. The system will bankrupt itself without any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laughed because using FAIR to back up an anti-immigration stance is like using one of the radical La Raza group reports to say immigrants should be allowed to stay. You are the one making the claim they are draining the economy, it is your burden to prove it.

I provided evidence which you laughed at. To be clear, if you do not accept the evidence I have sighted the burden of proof is on you to show why their numbers are to be not accepted. The circumstantial evidence you provide, that because they have a stance on the issue their numbers are wrong, is not substantive. A vested interest does not disqualify someone from being right about something. But to be fair I have spent the last 3 hours trying to corroberate your notion that they cost less then they pay and have not found a single number. Though I have found dozens of other places which confirm mine.

"You come forward with numbers without doing any sort of checking to see if the numbers are accurate and present them as proof. "

This aspersion on my charactor is wholly unfounded and unecessary and after this post have no intention of continuing this conversation with you. In actuality I have done a great deal of reading on the subject and have so far found no numbers to suggest significant differences in cost no matter which newspaper it is in. The notion that they pay in more in taxes then they take out in government services is something not even suggested by people on your side of the equation. Their arguments consist almost wholly of appeals to pity and charges of racism, neither of which are even remotely intellectual. You want legitamate numbers, walk into an LA county hospital and do an informal poll of how many are legal. multiply that number by the $6000 visit and you can see first hand how much they are costing. Free hospital visits at my expense make for very cheap health insurance. Or think of a typical illegal immigrant with 4 children in a public school. At 10K/ student thats $40,000 a year to educate his kids and if he is doing well he's making $30,000/year of which he might be paying as much as $7,000 in taxes. Who's payin the rest, do you think? Me, that's who. Stand on the border of one new mexico border ranch for one day and count. Stand at the garbage can of a roofing company in mid january and pull the w-2's out of the garbage. Count how many of those claimed 9 dependents...and if you are really curious, have the social security numbers on the w-2 researched and see if they actually match the name on them. The math is there and I see no point in arguing whether the cost is $48 billion/ year or $79billion. The point is that it is financially detrimental to anyone in this country who does not employ them. It is just another form of government subsidization.

And for the record...if you glance over my posts I didn't say anything about deportation. All I have advocated was no longer allowing people in without proper documentation and not advocating open borders without first eliminating the welfare state. The combination of the two would be disaterous in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The circumstantial evidence you provide, that because they have a stance on the issue their numbers are wrong, is not substantive. A vested interest does not disqualify someone from being right about something.

Does the TOC fairly represent Objectivism? If you wish, tomorrow when I have time I shall go dig up some of the charges laid against FAIR and it's head.

But to be fair I have spent the last 3 hours trying to corroberate your notion that they cost less then they pay and have not found a single number. Though I have found dozens of other places which confirm mine.

I never said they cost less than they pay. I said I disagree they cost us more than if than the citizens we already have. I say that if they are allowed to pay taxes, they'd cost even less. If they were allowed entry to work in skilled jobs instead of day labor, they'd be even more productive.

The notion that they pay in more in taxes then they take out in government services is something not even suggested by people on your side of the equation. Their arguments consist almost wholly of appeals to pity and charges of racism, neither of which are even remotely intellectual.

My side of the equation is me. I have not cried take pity on them, I have said that the quota system is immoral to deny them entry, not that we should feel pity on them. Where have I cried racism? My stance is that you should not save one immoral system that is breaking the states budget by upholding and installing more immoral laws. Is this not remotely intellectual? Your side of the equation is to help keep the welfare system running. If you actually think California is going to vote out welfare after putting up a wall across the border, more power to you, prove me wrong cause I'd love to see it. If you shore up the welfare system, they will say why get rid of it, its' fine now with them gone. The law makers pushing for the wall and kicking the immigrants out see the immigrants as being the problem, not the welfare. The immigrants are the scape goat.

You want legitamate numbers, walk into an LA county hospital and do an informal poll of how many are legal. multiply that number by the $6000 visit and you can see first hand how much they are costing. Free hospital visits at my expense make for very cheap health insurance.

I can walk down to Parkland and see just as many poor uninsured Americans doing the same thing.

Or think of a typical illegal immigrant with 4 children in a public school. At 10K/ student thats $40,000 a year to educate his kids and if he is doing well he's making $30,000/year of which he might be paying as much as $7,000 in taxes. Who's payin the rest, do you think? Me, that's who.

I have 5 in school, think my taxes cover all that? Most of this neighborhood is 3-4 bedroom houses, so most of the families have 3+ kids enrolled, think their taxes will cover it?

You can go right on being angry at the immigrants all you want. I told you I don't deny they cost us money, I deny they are the one's breaking the back of the state. At least they work, hold down jobs. The unemployed people living on social security checks and welfare stamps who keep having kids because the government will give them more and no desire to find a job, they are the problem. I'd take 5 hard working immigrants over them any day.

Or think of a typical illegal immigrant And for the record...if you glance over my posts I didn't say anything about deportation. All I have advocated was no longer allowing people in without proper documentation and not advocating open borders without first eliminating the welfare state.

I say deportation for the criminals, I'm just fine with that. I say deportation for those that don't pass the screening already set up. I am NOT advocating allowing anyone in without proper documentation, I am advocating not applying some arbitrary number to stop them.

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
"Our culture" would be annihilated, or it merely wouldn't be the most popular?

If, hypothetically, we had unrestricted immigration, it is likely that more than half of Mexico's population would enter the US almost overnight. There would be a mass influx of a magnitude that is unimaginable in today's standards.

If cultural annihilation is fine with you, then how would you respond to the situation where in a very short period of time, the town where you live were overrun with Spanish-speaking, often criminal-minded, people with substandard hygene habits and no regard for the civilized laws we have here? Suddenly, you would be unable to communicate (unless you majored in Spanish) and bombarded with some very alien culural habits (and the Mexicans are very 'in your face' about their cultural expression).

America was a melting pot. That meant that those from foreign cultures learned the dominant culture in America and assimilated. This is America, not Mexico, so therefore, it is only reasonable to expect the country to maintain some degree of cultural individuality and sovereignty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...