He denied I understood [the Judge], and implied I was misquoting him as someone who used the Constitution to justify this stance.
The very reason I quoted his position, was to makes mine clear; that yes, the Constitution and Free movement of labor is compatible. And what was RET’s response to this? That I’m a communist, saying it only of me, and without ever acknowledging that these men hold the same position. That of Natural law.
Thus, if RET is going to insult me, over and over again, for having this position, why in the world is he not saying it of them? Why is he pretending that I’m speaking on an idea of my own, and not representing a dissent other people among the right hold? A position they taught me?
RET keeps misrepresenting me, because that is easier to do then acknowledging dissent amongst the right exists. Amongst figures he cannot as easily hand waive as "RINOS", among people who are intellectual giants among other conservatives.
Figures like Napolitano, like Thomas, like Barry Goldwater (or hell, the Heritage Foundation pre-2006). He doesn’t have an easy, go-to explanation for why their standpoints exists, so he ignores them, and just focuses on demonizing me personally, and pretending that I’m on or speak for the left.
And I’m saying to that now, cut it out. Either be honest about what my standpoints are, acknowledge why you disagree with those men as well as me, or quit talking to me. I’m not taking your BS epithets anymore, I don’t deserve it, and you are in no position to give it. Coming after me exclusively like this is cowardly, and you know it.
I mean, you exclusively use liberal talking points on this issue. On this topic in particular, you are certainly speaking for the Left. You use incredibly narrow statistics, rather than broader ones. You ignore important demographic truths. A major one being a primary driver of low marriage rates and high divorce rates is because of a non-homogenous society. That every time you have a loss of unified culture, there is always both family, societal, and economic decline. You also ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, strongly support much, much larger government.
You keep harping on what a wonderful boon they are, and it sounds like an article straight off of Mother Jones just lacking the word “diversity”.
Probably the most important thing you never deal with is the median age of these immigrants. And ignoring how much they’ve already cost, you have never dealt with the overwhelming expense they will soon bring when they’re too old to work, and on social security and medicare, both of which will happen if they’re legalized as you want. The median age of an illegal immigrant is over 40. Over 5 million are already 55+.That’s 25 years off from having an extra 10+ million people on medicare. And most Mexicans are obese, which are the most expensive type of patient to care for.
There are so many substantive things you skirt on this issue and stick almost verbatim to the Democratic play book on how to discuss immigration. Yes, on this issue, you are certainly speaking for the Left, not Clarence Thomas.
Go read that thread. Natural Law is by no means a liberal position. Liberals don’t care about such things; they will wilfully violate rights whenever they see a use for it. They’ll violate free speech, religion, property rights, whatever they don’t see a use for.
My standpoint is to leave people be. People are actors who move in ways according to emergent order, why they move is for reasons too complex for a Government to unravel, or usefully manage.
We can prune the population here or there to try to control for criminals or terrorists, but if you’re obstructing people from exercising natural rights, people who aren’t culpable for anything, then you are betraying the heritage the Founder’s left us with, and are inviting disorder.
Immigration is the only reason we don’t have poor demographics like Europe. Immigration is the only way Canada has avoided the same situation.
Demographics resoundingly supports my position, because a nation that doesn’t have a growing population, is basically dying on the inside. A general losing of perishable work skills, consumption, & savings.
Japan knows it, Russia knows it, and China will start to feel it soon enough.
It’d be going into the weeds if I talked on this fully, but basically, the primary driver for these problems is the Dominance hierarchy. Where women are hypergamous, and aren’t finding enough men who are “better” than they are to settle down with.
Case in point, Japan has had the same problems with declining marriage and “parasitic singles” (without immigration). I looked at their problems 10-15 years ago, and realized “****, this is coming here”, if it wasn’t already here, and I just wasn’t noticing.
And again, my answer to you is, how was this navigated in the past?
We had much larger waves of immigrants before, with a smaller, poorer population of natives at home to absorb them with.
Every social problem you can imagine, to include things like terrorism and sickness, was worse then. Our capability to cope with anything was worse then.
And yet, society navigated it. It seems to me the knowledge of how that happened wasn’t passed on.
There have only been 3 groups of immigrants since the 1960s, who we’ve let unrestricted or close to unrestricted legal access to this country.
The Vietnamese, the Cubans, and people from the Eastern Bloc. All three of these groups vote conservatively, more than liberally.
Why do they do this? I’d argue it’s because we laid down far less obstacles for them to join into our society, allowing them to assert their own 1st hand experience of how much their home countries sucked, thus motivating them to reject what the Democrats were offering because they know better than most Americans what it leads to.
Reagan once referred to how there was something about Immigrants that made America more “American”, and I believe that this is precisely what he was getting at.
They take better note of what we take for granted, and voice it.
I’m not saying they don’t have problems; Bob in the other thread threw out problems they had in the early 20th century, and I’d say “yes, those are true”
But what’s also true is that, demographics show they’re more likely to start business, they’re more likely to be entrepreneurs, they’re more likely to come up with new ideas.
This is true of basically every nation on earth; immigrants everywhere are a self-selecting group of people, who are more driven towards risk-taking.
This is an absolute fact, across all cultures, and all ethnic groups. There’s little need to explain why in an economy, having such a group of people is tremendously useful.
So, the real issue that I see you scratching your head at, is why low-skilled immigration is useful, and I admit, that’s a more difficult thing to parse & define.
But we know that they have a use, because again, even advanced nations universally have to import them to fulfill their labor needs. There are no exceptions. Even China, the human labor giant, isn’t an exception.
There are natural drivers to demand for this labor, and I don’t think you’ve fully defined or encountered.
And yeah, so I have to ask again, did you read the article?
You were so quick to respond last time, that you didn’t seem to notice what I was pointing to. I had already admitted that, at the State level, immigrants tended to be a fiscal cost.
And yet, I’m not concerned about this. Why? Because the article (talking on the Texas study) goes on to mention their $$$ contribution to the economy. Which was a far & away larger figure than their fiscal cost… About 15x more.
The economy, is more important than the welfare state. The economy is a sphere where we assert natural human progress. But what’s more, because the GDP the economy is gaining from Immigrants being here is far & away more than what the welfare state costs;
We can conclude, that we can fix the welfare cost, by restructuring the welfare state. We can find a way for the welfare state to collect more of the money the immigrants are generating.
Or, y’know, cut the benefits. Which I would prefer, but whichever.
With or without immigrants, we need to do this anyway. The welfare state won’t last the way it is.
As I said before, the two things that have kept the Democrats plans afloat so long are coming to an end, and they’re will be reckoning inside the Government because of it. Democrats have in fact noticed this, but I’ve yet to see them develop a concrete plan to work ahead of it.
I don’t recall receiving a valid post report of RET of calling you dishonest. The post of yours, however, was reported (not by RET).
You’re assigning motives (dishonesty) to people saying certain things when you don’t know. I warned you about that before.
I’ve had my own problems with RET, but you’ve got plenty of lumber to get out of your own eye; especially when it comes to the issue of harrasment and failing to acknowledge.
Bottom line: Cool it. That’s not a request. If you feel RET (or anyone) has posted something in violation of the rules, flag it. You are not excused to break forum rules yourself because of their violations (real or imagined), or because you feel unjustly picked upon.
If you feel he’s breaking the rules in a post, then flag the post. We review every reported incident and collectively act when warranted. Just so you know, we mods come from different perspectives on many things, but we work cohesively to enforce the rules.
One thing that you may not get is an affirmation of action on our part. We will generally not tell “you” if we act on a reported post.
There is NO SUCH THING as a “natural law” to invade the United States, simply because you want to. Until you understand that–and acknowledge it–you’ll continue to be called out on this stupidity. If not by RET, then by me and a dozen or so others who routinely post here.
Between food stamps, free medical care, and schooling for their children the average Mexican household is drawing over $16,000 in benefits above and beyond what they pay in taxes. Our GDP per worker is only 113k. And since you have only 2 parents working at best, their aggregate contribution would be 226k, but that assumes they’re producing an average amount of output, which they are most certainly not. They are in the bottom 20% of incomes, so they’re producing more like 100k in GDP production, while drawing 16k in benefits.
To make a business analogy it’s like you hire two new workers. They raise your revenue by 100k, but your profits decline by 16k. Is that a good hire? Your revenue is up. But you’re losing money on your employees.
Saying “Revenue is more important than profits” is just really not true. Though you do tend to need revenue growth, you should never raise revenue in ways that substantially eat into profits, or worse add to debt. But that’s exactly what we’re doing here. Boosting revenue and adding to debt.
Misconstruing and misrepresenting are fair game when it addresses the post. Fortunately, when folks do that, it underscores the weaknesses in their arguments.
Do not attack another member. That’s the key point. Sometimes, it’s a little gray. We have another post from another person under review right now, and I have asked the person flagging it to make a case because I’m not sure I understand what is inappropriate about it.
I have respected for a long time your ability to keep your cool in the face of the misrepresentations that you constantly face. Your tenacity in responding to them is a bit weird I think, but hey, it just shows how deep your patience is. I get bored and uninterested – also you’re never going to “win” on the Interwebz. Sometimes you’ve just got to let things go.
If illegals are “adding to the economy” by buying stuff, one has to ask where their buying power comes from. At least in PART, it appears to come from government largesse and that’s OUR money they are spending…not theirs.
I would like to point out that my point from the very beginning has not been the “cost of welfare”, while significant that expense is not destroying the labor market.
My point has always been the way Welfare is used to SUBSIDIZE the labor market selectively.
People earning 6 figures are living in their cars while illegal immigrants earning 20 dollars per hour are living in homes right now in the same areas of California.
Those tech workers cannot afford a real roof but the illegals are snug as a bug every night, this subsidy is a whole lot larger than 16k per year.
Our domestic welfare rats don’t use welfare as a labor subsidy, they leach but they do not drive the wage rate to artificial lows.
Washington would pass open borders and blanket amnesty tomorrow if they didn’t fear the citizens who have been crushed under these subsidies, you could not fill a minivan with the number of Washington politicians who would eradicate welfare.
There is NO LABOR SHORTAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, there is only a shortage of people willing to go on welfare and work illegally under the table so the labor rate will work for them.
When citizens are crushed by laws, regulations and tax burdens to force them to subsidize their own competition in the labor market who is not only subsidized but free from all laws, regulations and tax burdens; you are building a third world economy.
And I understand why the rules exist but I am not bothered in the slightest by the rantings of the Left.
The overall cap on benefits in Texas is $12,550. You’re also assuming that every person on welfare, is taking every form of welfare available, when that’s only about 3% of the welfare-taking population.
And I have to stop you right there.
You are not employing these people. The Government is not a business employing them, and none of this addresses the larger point in play: are there economic drivers behind their presence here?
If there is, then this talk on the welfare state doesn’t matter.
The welfare state isn’t economic, it’s an artificial creation; a fiscal cost we can change at any time, simply by adjusting policy.
Truth is, we need to fix welfare anyway, it’s unsustainable as it is. Further, as I’ve stated before, if you had the consensus to build a wall, why the hell wouldn’t you also have the consensus to fix welfare? You would think they would run together.
The economy is more important than Welfare. That is absolutely true. Welfare doesn’t even exist if there isn’t an economy to pay for it.
The economy is both the emodiment of natural rights in motion, and the sphere in which the laws of Scarcity adjust themselves.
Everything in the economy is interconnected. The farmhands from poor latin countries who immigrate here have an economic force compelling them to do so.
A force we created, by selling our produce in their countries. By running their farms out of business, with American crops that undercut their own farmers.
And if you’re a farmer whose been put out of business, why notgo work for the people who did it? Our farmers need their labor to stay competitive with farmers in other countries, so the benefits are mutually reinforcing.
And that of course is just ONE example in ONE industry. There are other ways demand for labor is driven by our action of selling our goods across the border.
So change policy, and quit going after a Socio-economic trend that has been going on since the 1920s, if not the 1890s.
If you want to ensure it affirms itself in an orderly fashion, look at Eisenhower. So long as the legal immigration system only attack criminals and radicals, not labor demand, the system works, and illegal immigration is low.
The people who hire immigrants, become themselves a reinforcement to the legal system working, and ensure that people who come here are being properly vetted. This instead of being a force undercutting the law, and vetting only so far as they’re concerned with it.
70% of agricultural workers are illegal aliens. 70%. An economist looks at that figure and states outright “this industry is dependent on that labor being here.”
That interest is not going away, and you aren’t going to attract Americans into taking those jobs, so it’s time to strike a deal. It’s either that, or letting the status quo continue.
It doesn’t matter, you have not overcome the Economic Calculation Problem, the very thing that makes central planning of ANYTHING in the economy pointless. Government does not have the knowledge to manage the labor supply rationally. At any time. Subsidies do not “magically” give it this knowledge.
The Government subsidizes healthcare. Do we allow it to manage the supply of healthcare? No.
Government also subsidizes Corn. Do we allow it to manage the supply of Corn? No.
For good reason, It doesn’t know where the clearing point for any of this should be.
Subsidies do not change the economic reality of what the Government does. not. know.
And as we all know now, you do not use Government intervention to fix the effects of an other Government intervention. That’s TARP logic.
There is no such thing as an “artificial low” here. Their presence is commanded by the economy. It’s the laws of scarcity at work.
The immigrants are here, as a consequence of us selling our goods over the border, and pushing their businesses out of business. This is market coordination at work. It always has been.
We don’t need amnesty. Amnesty was never going to work.
The real problem is a disruptive immigration system that doesn’t allow the cyclical socio-economic trends to clear at their natural pace.
We have an immigration system designed by the Labor unions. So who here is surprised, that it doesn’t work?
Until it’s fixed, immigration will continue to generate disorder. The underlying interest for why they come to work here, and people hire them, is never going away. You can either work with it, work with human nature itself or have it work against the laws you want.
What say you?
Yes there is; the people in the cities are never going out from there to take jobs in rural areas.
It’s not happening.You know this RET, don’t pretend you don’t.
So if you prevent immigrants from taking jobs in rural areas, what have you functionally done?
You’ve helped no one, destroyed livelihoods, and lopped an arm off the economy. That’s it.
I waited for a lot more years than that for mods (even after I became one) to act on Jazzhead; that didn’t force me to break the rules, and RET- however peeved you are with him- isn’t forcing you to, either. Even teens are old enough to be reasonably expected to restrain themselves in what they post on a message board; how much more an adult? I’ve walked away from several of your bombastic tirades when I would have liked to have gone mushroom-cloud on you; and I’m not the only one (not necessarily about the mushroom cloud part).
Bottom line (again): If you have a problem with a post, flag it; we’re not going to chase links all over the forum for your sake, and your antagonistic style of complaining about it isn’t helping.
If I’m truly interested this nonsense stopping, the only question is whether you see to it yourself, or if the mods need to intervene. You have been amply cautioned.
“Upwards of 90% of blacks vote Democrat” because Democrats are the party of “reparations” and “punishing” whites for past racist behavior. It also doesn’t hurt that they are the party of welfare and other “freebies.” It should also be noted that Democrats are VERY careful to hide the FACT that DEMOCRATS were the whites who were racist…and still are.
I have been in a few forums the last few days,still ZERO evidence produced by miserable liberals,about Moore and his long distant past. Still waiting for Mushroom and others who are still a suck up for leftism bullcrap to post real evidence.
Gosh I wonder why the same liberal hypocrites are not upset with Franken who was caught RED HANDED sexually assaulting a woman,being all over Huffington,which make other accusations more credible since there is real evidence that Franken did assault women before. The same with TWICE convicted Perjurer and women abuser Clinton who did it for DECADES,which was an open secret among the media and other democrats.
Liberal hypocrisy will eventually catch then in the ass,since many repeats of it eventually make it too to hard to ignore anymore.