free speech takes a hit

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ok, we're at a total impasse because you think the 16th century and the 21st century are basically the same thing, so I'll let the others take this on with you.

Using all encompassing categories to compare the 16th century and the 21st is sophomoric, and you should know it.

I suppose I don't feel bound to use my four century removed ancestors as an example of how I should live my life today, four centuries later. If that were the case, I would have my slaves typing this for me because I would be too busy with other things.

Because my ancestors may have done something unethical or illegal (did the Native Americans have written laws against this sort of thing? Whose laws were my ancestors breaking? The law of goodwill?) does not disqualify me from being permitted to take the view that our laws should be followed, period, and that we should prosecute illegal aliens.

If your father were a murderer, would it make you a hypocrite for thinking that murder is wrong? Methinks not. So the fact that my ancestors were immigrants who took over a country with force does not make me a hypocrite for not wanting people to illegally overrun my country now.

Wrong is wrong regardless of one's past, but to understand what is happening, one needs an understanding of history and an understanding of the forces at work here...blaming the poor never does any good. Yes, we need to somehow work with the Mexican government...that's where statesmanship comes in, of course they'd rather see folks leave. No, it's not black and white, liberal and conservative but we know why different types of folks resist meaningful reform. I agree that we need an orderly process and we must fix a clearly broken system...my only dog in this fight is that we won't accomplish that by demonizing the poor! And yes, I have always admitted that I consider all folks my brothers and sisters, we can't fix the world but we can do a lot more. Thinking that we can close our borders and hide from the world's problems is what is naive! Everytime this debate comes up, it focuses on the "criminal aliens" instead of the causes...treat the symptoms while ignoring the disease!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Wrong is wrong regardless of one's past, but to understand what is happening, one needs an understanding of history and an understanding of the forces at work here...blaming the poor never does any good. Yes, we need to somehow work with the Mexican government...that's where statesmanship comes in, of course they'd rather see folks leave. No, it's not black and white, liberal and conservative but we know why different types of folks resist meaningful reform. I agree that we need an orderly process and we must fix a clearly broken system...my only dog in this fight is that we won't accomplish that by demonizing the poor! And yes, I have always admitted that I consider all folks my brothers and sisters, we can't fix the world but we can do a lot more. Thinking that we can close our borders and hide from the world's problems is what is naive! Everytime this debate comes up, it focuses on the "criminal aliens" instead of the causes...treat the symptoms while ignoring the disease!

You say poor, I saw lawbreakers. I am able to differentiate the two. There are poor people who are legal, and poor people who are lawbreakers.

I am all about helping the poor, I am not all about helping criminals...whether they are poor or not.

The "criminal aliens" are the cause of this problem, Somer. The argument is about illegal immigration. If there were no illegal immigrants, the debate would not occur. Illegal, being the key word here.

[timmgirvan]

I vote for a 10-15 yrs period of "isolationism" for the US! We can spend time fixing all the broke-down systems in our country, and the U.N can save the rest of the world!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I vote for a 10-15 yrs period of "isolationism" for the US! We can spend time fixing all the broke-down systems in our country, and the U.N can save the rest of the world!

LOL! Do you think there would be a world left? Besides, with the amount of foreign investment/ownership already in this country coupled with the multi-national companies, I don't see how we could do that?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

LOL! Do you think there would be a world left? Besides, with the amount of foreign investment/ownership already in this country coupled with the multi-national companies, I don't see how we could do that?

Actually, there would be nothing left! I'd forgotten that half the US is owned by someone else now anyway! ON to plan B!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

You say poor, I saw lawbreakers. I am able to differentiate the two. There are poor people who are legal, and poor people who are lawbreakers.

I am all about helping the poor, I am not all about helping criminals...whether they are poor or not.

The "criminal aliens" are the cause of this problem, Somer. The argument is about illegal immigration. If there were no illegal immigrants, the debate would not occur. Illegal, being the key word here.

I completely disagee! The problem here is that you and I have a completely different world view...that's not gonna change, so we'll disagree!

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Wrong is wrong regardless of one's past, but to understand what is happening, one needs an understanding of history and an understanding of the forces at work here...blaming the poor never does any good. Yes, we need to somehow work with the Mexican government...that's where statesmanship comes in, of course they'd rather see folks leave. No, it's not black and white, liberal and conservative but we know why different types of folks resist meaningful reform. I agree that we need an orderly process and we must fix a clearly broken system...my only dog in this fight is that we won't accomplish that by demonizing the poor! And yes, I have always admitted that I consider all folks my brothers and sisters, we can't fix the world but we can do a lot more. Thinking that we can close our borders and hide from the world's problems is what is naive! Everytime this debate comes up, it focuses on the "criminal aliens" instead of the causes...treat the symptoms while ignoring the disease!

this is the approach that congress keep advocating and I think it is wrong and that our government is basically not fullfilling its duty to protect our border. Its not about poor people, its about security. We need not fix every socio-economic issue that is involved here before we attempt to gain control of our border. our freedoms and the sovereignty of our nation are at stake.

there is a fundamental difference between closing your border and controlling your border. No one is advocating closing the border and hiding from all the problems of the world. I'm just saying control the border now in order to minimize further problems, while you're dealing head-on with the problems that have been created.

Why is it that the process of having having a safe secure border that prohibits anyone from just wandering over anytime they desire is equivalent to demonizing the poor?

Far from demonizing the poor, what I really think we are doing is giving preferential treatment to the poor. The people that apply for work visa's, student visa's, etc, that reside in countries that require a flight to gain entrance to the US, basically the people who are playing by the rules and doing things legally, are generally more wealthy and educated and advantaged than those that are crossing over from the south. Its a generalization but I think its fairly accurate. These people that play by the rules have to go through ardous procedures and a lengthy wait in order to comply. Their cases are reviewed somewhat thoroughly and the facts about themselves and their purpose to come to the US is fully reviewed.

On the other hand the ones that flaunt the rules and cross illegally, we look aside and wring our hands and say well there is nothing we can do.
The ones that are here now who violated the law we have to protect and give rights to because they are poor. Its a double standard that is in FAVOR of the poor.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

this is the approach that congress keep advocating and I think it is wrong and that our government is basically not fullfilling its duty to protect our border. Its not about poor people, its about security. We need not fix every socio-economic issue that is involved here before we attempt to gain control of our border. our freedoms and the sovereignty of our nation are at stake.

there is a fundamental difference between closing your border and controlling your border. No one is advocating closing the border and hiding from all the problems of the world. I'm just saying control the border now in order to minimize further problems, while you're dealing head-on with the problems that have been created.

Why is it that the process of having having a safe secure border that prohibits anyone from just wandering over anytime they desire is equivalent to demonizing the poor?

Far from demonizing the poor, what I really think we are doing is giving preferential treatment to the poor. The people that apply for work visa's, student visa's, etc, that reside in countries that require a flight to gain entrance to the US, basically the people who are playing by the rules and doing things legally, are generally more wealthy and educated and advantaged than those that are crossing over from the south. Its a generalization but I think its fairly accurate. These people that play by the rules have to go through ardous procedures and a lengthy wait in order to comply. Their cases are reviewed somewhat thoroughly and the facts about themselves and their purpose to come to the US is fully reviewed.

On the other hand the ones that flaunt the rules and cross illegally, we look aside and wring our hands and say well there is nothing we can do.
The ones that are here now who violated the law we have to protect and give rights to because they are poor. Its a double standard that is in FAVOR of the poor.

I don't disagree with you about protecting our borders as long as you understand the "terrorist argument" is a bunch of crap...as DTS pointed out, the Mexican border is probably not their entry point of choice, the only way to protect us from terrorism is maintaining an intelligence community capable of tracking folks and identifying threats....something we haven't done very well to date! We need to focus on the folks smuggling people into the country, often taking their life savings and subjecting them to cruel treatment. We need to work with other governments to address long-term issues. We need to remove the incentives for companies to knowingly employ "illegals". I have no problem with more border guards, use of hi-tech equipment etc but these folks will continue to come until the underlying issues are addressed. And....nothing in society favors the poor!

[Downthestretch55]

ArlJim,
You said, "there is a fundamental difference between closing your border and controlling your border. No one is advocating closing the border and hiding from all the problems of the world. I'm just saying control the border now in order to minimize further problems, while you're dealing head-on with the problems that have been created".

Ok...question. How do you suggest that the border be controlled?
I ask this in a most respectful way.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

ArlJim,
You said, "there is a fundamental difference between closing your border and controlling your border. No one is advocating closing the border and hiding from all the problems of the world. I'm just saying control the border now in order to minimize further problems, while you're dealing head-on with the problems that have been created".

Ok...question. How do you suggest that the border be controlled?
I ask this in a most respectful way.

a closed border to me means no immigration, a controlled border means just that, a controlled documented immigration. like I said previously I really belive in an active immigration policy, one that brings many people to the US from a variety of countries, FAIRLY and with some security measures.

I don't claim to have all the answers on this issue, but on the border control part of it I do have some ideas that I would immediately pursue if I were in charge of things. I don't think its real complicated. In my mind what is going on is not much different than an invasion from a foreign country, admittedly one that we have allowed, or even invited. In this age of terror though it is not acceptable to have such a loose grasp on the border
Briefly:
Basically we need to really increase our border control assets. I would increase the US border patrol personnel in the region significantly. I would augment that with National guard deployments. I would look at the entire southern border not just specific pathes. I would install high tech hardware, cameras, drones, listening devices, etc, aimed at the border.

While doing this I would announce to Mexico that we will now be actively changing our posture and apprehending people. I would have a tough policy. like first offense, you are sent back. Second offense you're looking at some jail time.

What I think would be ideal is a large US "super" consulate in northern Mexico, where people that want to enter the US for work can be processed and given some type of work visa. You want to eliminate the demand for illegal entry by expanding the legal channels. When I enter Brasil on business I am fingerprinted and a photo is taken.

We need much more horsepower in terms of processing documents etc. We have now virtual gridlock in terms of passports.

We also will need active domestic enforcement against employers who hire illegals. the idea is to have visibilty, so that we can get an accurate count, and also I might add to be able to protect the rights of these workers. they are invisble now and therefore I think candidates for abuse.

These actions would stem the tide and channel the migration into legal path's.

Remember though that the border control issue is not only about migrant workers, its about keeping out unsavory types, criminals, terrorists, drug trade, customs control etc. As Somer said the big majority are just people that want work in order to support their families and have a decent life, and therefore are not a threat. I agree with that but my only point is that we have to have control over the numbers of people coming in, AND we need to be able to exclude certain people.

Left unchecked for too long, and an uncontrolled border is a recipe for ruin.
those are my thoughts, but I know that with that said none of it is easy.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

a closed border to me means no immigration, a controlled border means just that, a controlled documented immigration. like I said previously I really belive in an active immigration policy, one that brings many people to the US from a variety of countries, FAIRLY and with some security measures.

I don't claim to have all the answers on this issue, but on the border control part of it I do have some ideas that I would immediately pursue if I were in charge of things. I don't think its real complicated. In my mind what is going on is not much different than an invasion from a foreign country, admittedly one that we have allowed, or even invited. In this age of terror though it is not acceptable to have such a loose grasp on the border
Briefly:
Basically we need to really increase our border control assets. I would increase the US border patrol personnel in the region significantly. I would augment that with National guard deployments. I would look at the entire southern border not just specific pathes. I would install high tech hardware, cameras, drones, listening devices, etc, aimed at the border.

While doing this I would announce to Mexico that we will now be actively changing our posture and apprehending people. I would have a tough policy. like first offense, you are sent back. Second offense you're looking at some jail time.

What I think would be ideal is a large US "super" consulate in northern Mexico, where people that want to enter the US for work can be processed and given some type of work visa. You want to eliminate the demand for illegal entry by expanding the legal channels. When I enter Brasil on business I am fingerprinted and a photo is taken.

We need much more horsepower in terms of processing documents etc. We have now virtual gridlock in terms of passports.

We also will need active domestic enforcement against employers who hire illegals. the idea is to have visibilty, so that we can get an accurate count, and also I might add to be able to protect the rights of these workers. they are invisble now and therefore I think candidates for abuse.

These actions would stem the tide and channel the migration into legal path's.

Remember though that the border control issue is not only about migrant workers, its about keeping out unsavory types, criminals, terrorists, drug trade, customs control etc. As Somer said the big majority are just people that want work in order to support their families and have a decent life, and therefore are not a threat. I agree with that but my only point is that we have to have control over the numbers of people coming in, AND we need to be able to exclude certain people.

Left unchecked for too long, and an uncontrolled border is a recipe for ruin.
those are my thoughts, but I know that with that said none of it is easy.

ArlJim,
Thanks for taking the time to explain. You make some very interesting points.
I think the border should be controlled as well, but I don't really see that it can be. Since the "war on drugs" began so many years ago, are you aware that despite great efforts by many governmental agencies, less than 10% of illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana) are intercepted.
I really don't have the answer to how the border can be controlled, nor do those that are attempting to control it.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I don't disagree with you about protecting our borders as long as you understand the "terrorist argument" is a bunch of crap...as DTS pointed out, the Mexican border is probably not their entry point of choice, the only way to protect us from terrorism is maintaining an intelligence community capable of tracking folks and identifying threats....something we haven't done very well to date! We need to focus on the folks smuggling people into the country, often taking their life savings and subjecting them to cruel treatment. We need to work with other governments to address long-term issues. We need to remove the incentives for companies to knowingly employ "illegals". I have no problem with more border guards, use of hi-tech equipment etc but these folks will continue to come until the underlying issues are addressed. And....nothing in society favors the poor!

I certainly do not belive the terrorist argument is a bunch of crap. No it hasn't been the preferred point of entry. But is there any reason to believe that it won't be, or couldn't be? You don't know that, no one does. My point is we can't sit on our hands and find out later that an obvious easy entry point was taken advantage of. I agree with you that we need to use the intelligence community and track people. You can't track people if you don't know who they are or where they are. There is a huge proliferation of phony documents.

I fully agree that the smugglers are ones to target and eliminate. I'm also with you on the crackdown on employers who hire people through the back door. All of these things done in the dark are subject to abuse.
And many things favor the poor, are you kidding? Just look at the tax code!No fairness there if you ask me.

[GenuineRisk]

This is fascinating reading guys- again I am amazed that it takes a horse-racing board to get people on all sides of the political spectrum debating an issue together. Much as I love political blogs, people tend to keep to their own kind on them.

I missed the beginning of the discussion on immigration, but in the last two pages, anyway, I notice no one discusses the economic incentive provided by businesses to illegal immigrants. They come because there is work here. It seems to me it would be much less expensive from a taxation standpoint to, rather than spend lots of money securing the border (which I doubt would work- we've got a reeeeaaaaalllllly big border and the cost of fully maintaining it, or, god forbid, building a wall would be astronomical), instead go after the companies and people that hire illegal immigrants. Fine the daylights out of them, put them in jail, do whatever it takes to make it too much of a financial or personal risk to hire illegal immigrants. Then the jobs available to illegal immigrants will dry up, and so will the illegal immigration.

The consequences, of course, is that we'll be paying $10.00 for a pint of strawberries, and a lot more for a pound of beef (I have no idea what beef costs these days since I don't buy it) since the advantage to businesses of illegal immigrants is cheap labor, which is reflected in the price we pay for goods. So, the question to ask yourself is, are you willing to pay that much more for your food? Which will cost you more money- supporting illegal immigrants or paying the real cost of producing food?

I don't know what the answer is- I don't know what the answer is for myself, frankly. But I don't see why, if we're serious about illegal immigration, we don't go after the cause of it, and that's available jobs provided by businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is fascinating reading guys- again I am amazed that it takes a horse-racing board to get people on all sides of the political spectrum debating an issue together. Much as I love political blogs, people tend to keep to their own kind on them.

I missed the beginning of the discussion on immigration, but in the last two pages, anyway, I notice no one discusses the economic incentive provided by businesses to illegal immigrants. They come because there is work here. It seems to me it would be much less expensive from a taxation standpoint to, rather than spend lots of money securing the border (which I doubt would work- we've got a reeeeaaaaalllllly big border and the cost of fully maintaining it, or, god forbid, building a wall would be astronomical), instead go after the companies and people that hire illegal immigrants. Fine the daylights out of them, put them in jail, do whatever it takes to make it too much of a financial or personal risk to hire illegal immigrants. Then the jobs available to illegal immigrants will dry up, and so will the illegal immigration.

The consequences, of course, is that we'll be paying $10.00 for a pint of strawberries, and a lot more for a pound of beef (I have no idea what beef costs these days since I don't buy it) since the advantage to businesses of illegal immigrants is cheap labor, which is reflected in the price we pay for goods. So, the question to ask yourself is, are you willing to pay that much more for your food? Which will cost you more money- supporting illegal immigrants or paying the real cost of producing food?

I don't know what the answer is- I don't know what the answer is for myself, frankly. But I don't see why, if we're serious about illegal immigration, we don't go after the cause of it, and that's available jobs provided by businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

GR, I did mention the business angle briefly and you are 100% correct...there will be a cost to stopping these low-pay workers from coming here and it will be as you say, skyrocketing food costs as well as sharp increases in other commodities. The same people who are so vocal about "illegals" coming here will be even more vocal when an orange costs $2!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

That stuff's all relative. If the cost of living goes up, the time lag between wages catching up is small.

Except that we're not paying the actual cost of food now; we're paying an artificially lowered cost, based on governmental subsidies and cheap (illegal labor). Take away these factors and the cost of food at the grocery will go up and stay up. Food was more expensive in the past, in today's dollars. And serving sizes were smaller and people ate less. The change in agricultural policies in the 1970's lowered the cost of making food, and the shift to large agribusinesses who use on cheap labor, rather than family farms, further deflated costs. I'd wager money on it, B, get rid of illegal immigration and food will be a LOT more expensive. It will be closer to what it should actually cost, but do you think people are going to accept that the very cheap ride they've been enjoying for the past 30 years will have to end?

Again, I don't have the answer- I spend more on food than the average person because a lot of my groceries are organic and small-farm stuff. And as a result, I eat less because I don't have as much in the house. I don't mind. But I know I'm a bit of an odd bird in that respect.

[GenuineRisk]

[quote=ArlJim78]I fully agree that the smugglers are ones to target and eliminate. I'm also with you on the crackdown on employers who hire people through the back door. All of these things done in the dark are subject to abuse.
And many things favor the poor, are you kidding? Just look at the tax code!No fairness there if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

Not quite accurate if you're saying the poor get a better deal- the NYTimes ran an editorial in early March mentioning how many, many wealthy people pay less than 10 percent of their income in taxes. And when you factor in sales tax, which affects all income levels the same, the poor are paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy.

But I agree; no fairness in the tax code.

Here's the pertinent part of the NYTimes editorial. I'll also post the link, though I think you need to be a premium subscriber to read it. The editorial itself was about the ATM, and an interesting history lesson on it.

<<Regardless, until another course is chosen, a law focused on rich investors who paid little or no tax is now a law that affects 23.4 million of the nation's 90 million taxpayers.

The story began on Jan. 17, 1969, three days before the Johnson administration was to end. Joseph W. Barr, who served only a few weeks as Treasury secretary, told a Congressional panel about the 155 families who paid no income tax, despite incomes of $1 million or more in today's dollars.

Mr. Barr's report made the front page of newspapers across the country the next morning and fueled debates in coffee shops, police stations and across kitchen tables. Congress in 1969 received more letters about these untaxed Americans than it did about Vietnam, according to Michael Graetz, a Yale Law School professor and tax adviser in the George H. W. Bush administration.

While the idea of paying your fair share as a moral issue may seem strange today, it was central to tax debates in that era. The disclosure that some of those who had gained the most by living in the United States did not share in the costs of the war infuriated many taxpayers....

Meanwhile the stated goal of the original tax is not being met under the successor tax enacted 21 years ago. A far greater number of well-off families still pay only small amounts of tax. More than 41,000 taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more in 2003, the last year for which figures are available, paid less than 10 percent of their income in individual income taxes. And the number of untaxed high-income families -- once 155 -- grew to 2,824.>>

http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AA0894DF404482