Don't like freedom?

[HeyYou]

Let me put it in simple terms... Would you rather have:

 

One law making it so that ALL persons of illegal status be immediately stripped of all property/standing and be deported.

 

Or, several laws which allow persons of illegal status to work towards citizenship, remain in the country if they contribute positively to the community and have family members who are citizens, or possess talents or ideas which enrich the country. But still deport those who sneak into the country, commit crimes, have no interest in being documented, and have no interests here other than earning money to send home across the border.

 

The first one is a single law, but it is far less free than the second one which is several laws due to granting certain permissions to those who wish to be a part of this country.

 

This is something which is also not controlled directly by the constitution, but rather falls into the range of state rights, yet many states have come under fire for being both too lenient on immigration laws as well being too strict. There is no "law of the land" so every state has to spend the time and resources figuring out their own policy while many of these illegals shift from one state to the next hoping for greener pastures when the laws do get changed by politicians who are easily swayed by corporate dollar and pressures from re-election.

 

This was the point I was trying to make, and is the reason why national laws are needed, so that you don't have states changing laws on whim and pushing unwanted persons onto other states. Until national laws were passed regarding segregation, Jim Crow laws served a similar purpose in trying to keep African Americans from having any rights, and being pressured to leave the state. It's the same exact thing, except is no longer regional, and isn't restricted to color of skin.

 

And we can't very well have no laws regarding immigration.

 

If the federal government would actually ENFORCE the immigration laws that are already on the books, the states would have no need to come up with their own versions, and have the feds challenge them in court as to whether they have the authority to pass, and enforce, such laws.

Its not very easy to enforce immigration laws on a federal level.

 

Really? Hhhmmm...... I do not agree with you there. Income tax is a federal law, they don't seem to have much trouble enforcing that one...... Seems to me, they HAVE federal marshals, they have border patrol, along with all the resources that go along with being a NATIONAL government. If they can't enforce the laws they pass, what good are they?

 

If the federal government would actually ENFORCE the immigration laws that are already on the books, the states would have no need to come up with their own versions, and have the feds challenge them in court as to whether they have the authority to pass, and enforce, such laws.

The federal government can't enforce it because the laws they're working with are outdated and cannot meet the pressures of what is still an open border, or the demands of the system. So currently yes, states HAVE TO come up with their own policies, even when they aren't always constitutional... Which is essentially the point I'm making. You have a national law which doesn't work, but state laws which are swayed by local interests. The same was true during segregation. In both cases, this does not mean states are more "free" in the sense that CS is trying to claim (fewer laws = more free), but rather that they have to scramble making new laws to get around the few federal laws and letting the dollar or votes be their guide. It explains the necessity of viable national laws, and how states can quickly abuse powers for their own interests.

 

What's so hard to understand? The very term itself should be more than adequate to the task. ILLEGAL Immigrant. It's really a very simple matter. Enforce the laws on the books, protecting our borders, and deport the illegals. If you are in the country illegally, you don't get welfare, you don't get free health care, you don't get food stamps, all you get is a ride back to the country you came from. End of story.

 

Calling Illegal Immigrants "undocumented migrants" is roughly the equivalent of calling a drug dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist".

[marharth]

Let me put it in simple terms... Would you rather have:

 

One law making it so that ALL persons of illegal status be immediately stripped of all property/standing and be deported.

 

Or, several laws which allow persons of illegal status to work towards citizenship, remain in the country if they contribute positively to the community and have family members who are citizens, or possess talents or ideas which enrich the country. But still deport those who sneak into the country, commit crimes, have no interest in being documented, and have no interests here other than earning money to send home across the border.

 

The first one is a single law, but it is far less free than the second one which is several laws due to granting certain permissions to those who wish to be a part of this country.

 

This is something which is also not controlled directly by the constitution, but rather falls into the range of state rights, yet many states have come under fire for being both too lenient on immigration laws as well being too strict. There is no "law of the land" so every state has to spend the time and resources figuring out their own policy while many of these illegals shift from one state to the next hoping for greener pastures when the laws do get changed by politicians who are easily swayed by corporate dollar and pressures from re-election.

 

This was the point I was trying to make, and is the reason why national laws are needed, so that you don't have states changing laws on whim and pushing unwanted persons onto other states. Until national laws were passed regarding segregation, Jim Crow laws served a similar purpose in trying to keep African Americans from having any rights, and being pressured to leave the state. It's the same exact thing, except is no longer regional, and isn't restricted to color of skin.

 

And we can't very well have no laws regarding immigration.

 

If the federal government would actually ENFORCE the immigration laws that are already on the books, the states would have no need to come up with their own versions, and have the feds challenge them in court as to whether they have the authority to pass, and enforce, such laws.

Its not very easy to enforce immigration laws on a federal level.

 

Really? Hhhmmm...... I do not agree with you there. Income tax is a federal law, they don't seem to have much trouble enforcing that one...... Seems to me, they HAVE federal marshals, they have border patrol, along with all the resources that go along with being a NATIONAL government. If they can't enforce the laws they pass, what good are they?

 

If the federal government would actually ENFORCE the immigration laws that are already on the books, the states would have no need to come up with their own versions, and have the feds challenge them in court as to whether they have the authority to pass, and enforce, such laws.

The federal government can't enforce it because the laws they're working with are outdated and cannot meet the pressures of what is still an open border, or the demands of the system. So currently yes, states HAVE TO come up with their own policies, even when they aren't always constitutional... Which is essentially the point I'm making. You have a national law which doesn't work, but state laws which are swayed by local interests. The same was true during segregation. In both cases, this does not mean states are more "free" in the sense that CS is trying to claim (fewer laws = more free), but rather that they have to scramble making new laws to get around the few federal laws and letting the dollar or votes be their guide. It explains the necessity of viable national laws, and how states can quickly abuse powers for their own interests.

 

What's so hard to understand? The very term itself should be more than adequate to the task. ILLEGAL Immigrant. It's really a very simple matter. Enforce the laws on the books, protecting our borders, and deport the illegals. If you are in the country illegally, you don't get welfare, you don't get free health care, you don't get food stamps, all you get is a ride back to the country you came from. End of story.

 

Calling Illegal Immigrants "undocumented migrants" is roughly the equivalent of calling a drug dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist".

Income tax is different, its easy to trace someone who doesn't pay it.

 

With illegal immigration there are multiple ways to get past border patrol.

[Aurielius]

What's so hard to understand? The very term itself should be more than adequate to the task. ILLEGAL Immigrant. It's really a very simple matter. Enforce the laws on the books, protecting our borders, and deport the illegals. If you are in the country illegally, you don't get welfare, you don't get free health care, you don't get food stamps, all you get is a ride back to the country you came from. End of story.

 

Calling Illegal Immigrants "undocumented migrants" is roughly the equivalent of calling a drug dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist".

 

I throughly concur, there are laws on the books but they are not being enforced. The current laxity towards illegals makes the the poor sap who follows the rules and acquires their green card status seem like a chump. The states are only stepping in because the federal government has failed utterly to enforce the sanctity of our borders. As for those cities that have declared themselves sanctuary zones, they should lose all state and federal funding until they come in compliance with the law. Florida has enacted a new fairly tough law on employers that hire illegals which will turn off the money tap, no jobs..no money..less illegals. Sorry Vagrant but I stand with CS Gators on states rights, it's the only counter balance to the federal behemoth..they act while the feds sit on their asses and wring their hands. All of the last few administrations have been pathetic in relation to illegal immigration, so looking to Washington DC is a forlorn hope..they are too concerned with offending possible constituencies to act effectively.

[Vagrant0]

Really? Hhhmmm...... I do not agree with you there. Income tax is a federal law, they don't seem to have much trouble enforcing that one...... Seems to me, they HAVE federal marshals, they have border patrol, along with all the resources that go along with being a NATIONAL government. If they can't enforce the laws they pass, what good are they?

With income tax... they know where you live, and can usually prove your status... not really the case with undocumented immigrants or even those unlicensed pharmacists.

[DeTomaso]

Really? Hhhmmm...... I do not agree with you there. Income tax is a federal law, they don't seem to have much trouble enforcing that one...... Seems to me, they HAVE federal marshals, they have border patrol, along with all the resources that go along with being a NATIONAL government. If they can't enforce the laws they pass, what good are they?

With income tax... they know where you live, and can usually prove your status... not really the case with undocumented immigrants or even those unlicensed pharmacists.

 

Today a great many working people in the West have an income below the state income tax assessment ceiling, not only the mentioned illegal immigrants and drug dealers that prefer face-to-face over documented communication. Thus income tax as perfect parameter of civic transparency doesn't work as good as it was still the case in the 70s and 80s. Life is getting harder for more and more people are getting insolvent and the heavily indebted middle class is threatened with extinction. We have to face a classical structural change, the social roll backwards to the two class societies of the poor and the rich with an upcoming strengthening of the political extremes by those who feel themselves as being permanently fooled by empty state slogans and one-sided economic programs for the few rich against the many poor and thus finally by the state as such. That is the moment when people are easily willing to give up their former individual freedom for the sake of a new collective security as the guarantor of individual survival, often under unfree conditions. Individual freedom alone simply doesn't feed the yaps at home. Modern policy thus always strives not to cross the critical point of safe return, to face more poor folk than the state system can live with.

Now, when is one to be called poor in a world that is dedicated to permanent consumer needs? Exactly when one has to scoop the individual volume of card credit without ever being able to restore the zero line within a twelvemonth, when one has to live day by day at the edge of the own insolvency.

One often overlooked aspect of individual freedom is to say "no" from time to time, to drill non-consumption when the old anted stuff still works fine and new bankrolled stuff is just a prestigious object to gain a temporary respect in the show-offy neighborhood or the buy-happy clique.

Edited June 19, 2011 by DeTomaso

[grannywils]

DeTomaso, you are sometimes indeed as difficult to understand as an old friend of mine who no longer graces this site. However, I worked very hard to understand her posts, as I do to understand yours.

 

I think what you are saying here is that none of us will be free if we all continue our outrageous consumerism. We are already becoming a two class society; a small and extremely wealthy upper class, and a huge and relatively impoverished lower class; as the middle class is slowely disappering into the dust. However, I believe you are also saying that we must all take our share of the responsibility for the impoverisment of our bodies and souls. No the rich do not need to get any richer, but no the poor do not necessarily need a better, shinier "whatsis", just because a newer version has come out on the market. We need to take command of our out of control consumerism and not be led around by the nose by all the marketers out there.

 

Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but I am really trying, and if I have gotten it right, I will say that I do agree. However I will also say that while this is a large part of the problem, and the one part over which we as a populace do have control; there is more over which we do not.

 

 

[Aurielius]

Well I hate to be the unabashed capitalist here but if DeTomaso wants to give away all his worldly goods and retreat back to the monastery and contemplate his navel ..fine, just don't expect a mad rush to join you in your self proclaimed socially moralist elitist haven. Can you be more condescending? The beauty of America is that anyone and everyone can pick their own path and pursue it, if someone wants to collect all the material toys available and if that make them happy so be it. There is an old New England saying "Your freedom stops where mine begins"and as long as someone abides by that I could care less what they do or collect to find contentment in life.

 

To Grannywills..there is a large middle class missing in your appraisal of the country and they have yet to disappear, it might be economically tough on us at the moment but we will survive and prosper in spite of attempts by the current administration to re distribute our wealth. This country never promised an even playing field just the opportunity to play and those with the determination to succeed have and will do so. The middle class that I see surrounding me from my veranda is alive and kicking, slightly pissed off at the current mess of an economy but not ready to throw in the towel either.

[marharth]

in spite of attempts by the current administration to re distribute our wealth.

Can you expand on that?

 

if someone wants to collect all the material toys available and if that make them happy so be it.

 

I may be misunderstanding what your saying. Are you saying that its fine for a single person or group to control almost all the wealth?

[HeyYou]

Well I hate to be the unabashed capitalist here but if DeTomaso wants to give away all his worldly goods and retreat back to the monastery and contemplate his navel ..fine, just don't expect a mad rush to join you in your self proclaimed socially moralist elitist haven. Can you be more condescending? The beauty of America is that anyone and everyone can pick their own path and pursue it, if someone wants to collect all the material toys available and if that make them happy so be it. There is an old New England saying "Your freedom stops where mine begins"and as long as someone abides by that I could care less what they do or collect to find contentment in life.

 

To Grannywills..there is a large middle class missing in your appraisal of the country and they have yet to disappear, it might be economically tough on us at the moment but we will survive and prosper in spite of attempts by the current administration to re distribute our wealth. This country never promised an even playing field just the opportunity to play and those with the determination to succeed have and will do so. The middle class that I see surrounding me from my veranda is alive and kicking, slightly pissed off at the current mess of an economy but not ready to throw in the towel either.

 

I need to move to where you live then. As where I live, over 25% of the population of the COUNTY is on some form of assistance. There are no jobs. There is no likelihood of there being any jobs, because the last administration made it much more profitable to open factories in china, than here..... I suppose, if we all wanted to live in dorms, 20 to a room, work 12 hour days, six or seven days a week, for about 10 bucks a day, maybe we could get some of those jobs back?

 

Whattaya say?

[ginnyfizz]

if someone wants to collect all the material toys available and if that make them happy so be it.

 

I may be misunderstanding what your saying. Are you saying that its fine for a single person or group to control almost all the wealth?

 

No, I think he is saying that if someone wants to collect possessions, and they think that makes them happy, and they can afford it, then it doesn't bother him that they do it, which is hardly the same thing as what YOU are saying. And that it is no business of the state to redistribute that wealth and say "Thou shalt not", nor should they feel the need to give away all that they have. Rampant consumerism does have its problems and causes a lot of debt for sure, but the fact is that if there was no consumerism there would be even fewer jobs. One sector that IS booming in Britain is the luxury sector, well more fools them I say to the rich if they want to buy a handbag for £10,000, but let them do it if they want to.

 

HeyYou - just because there is an explosion in welfare, it does not follow that there is not still a very pissed off middle class still out there. I should know, I work on a welfare to work programme and live in the UK where our welfare system is famously full of largesse. Many is the time when I find a job for a customer which is actually paying more than I earn myself, only for them to say "Boohoo no, I can't live on that..." me - "Whaddya mean, I have to..." them - "Well you are a big time sucka..." me "no I have a work ethic" them "don't use that language to me or I'll report you..."

 

In Britain as in the USA, it's all the same. Those of us in the pissed off middle class and, I might say, the hard working working class who should be included here, bear the brunt of the increase in inflation and taxes, because we are deemed too rich for tax credits or any assistance, and yet we are not rich enough to pay accountants and lawyers to minimise our tax exposure or to domicile ourselves in a tax haven. Just because we merely grumble softly and then get back to out workstations/digging holes/driving trucks, etc etc, doesn't mean that the let's call them "Exasperated Workers" aren't there.