US Politics 3

[sToNED_CAT]

The federal government moves closer to solvency with every illegal that gets a job.

Not if "legal" loses the same job. Goverment needs to take care of people who are out of work, or their incomes were lowered because of competition with illegal labor. And I think US federal govt loses much more than 10 bil. (that's the estimated amount illegals pay on taxes)

If the fucking DDR couldn't keep people in with a fucking wall around the fucking capital, the USA isn't going to keep people out with a fucking fence.

They could. After the wall was constructed, very few people fled across the border. Actually the border security of former commie countries was top notch, almost no one was able to get through and it wasn't very expensive too.

[TrackerNeil]

Not if "legal" loses the same job. Goverment needs to take care of people who are out of work, or their incomes were lowered because of competition with illegal labor. And I think US federal govt loses much more than 10 bil. (that's the estimated amount illegals pay on taxes)

I notice there's an awful lot of "if" and "I think" in that statement. I recommend you come back with some substantiated figures.

[Commodore]

Wow

LINK

The Missouri Health Care Freedom, Proposition C is on the August 3, 2010 statewide ballot in Missouri as an legislatively-referred state statute. The proposed measure aims to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Not if "legal" loses the same job.

Show me an instance of a citizen being fired for the purpose of hiring an illegal. One instance.

Goverment needs to take care of people who are out of work, or their incomes were lowered because of competition with illegal labor.

Any employer would rather hire someone who speaks solid english than someone who doesn't. Illegals are not competing for jobs with citizens. If an illegal and a legal apply for the same job, the legal gets it every time. No one's income is being lowered by illegal labor. Illegals earn minimum wage, which is (as close as employers can approximate to) the market rate for that job. If an immigrant wasn't earning minimum wage there, a citizen would.

And I think US federal govt loses much more than 10 bil. (that's the estimated amount illegals pay on taxes)

You say they are, I say they aren't. Looks like neither one of us has figures to pull out, but I think everyone will agree that if the Feds started really doing something about it, they would lose a hell of a lot more than you speculate they are now.

[sToNED_CAT]

Any employer would rather hire someone who speaks solid english than someone who doesn't.

Not always. In some regions ability to speak Spanish is pretty much necessity, so people could understand coworkers.

No one's income is being lowered by illegal labor. Illegals earn minimum wage, which is (as close as employers can approximate to) the market rate for that job. If an immigrant wasn't earning minimum wage there, a citizen would.

You really think availability of such huge supply of cheap labor doesn't lower the wages?

[lokisnow]

that's impressive, missouri turned out a million voters on primary day.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Thor,

As I said cost is the best argument against improving border security.

[TrackerNeil]

*chuckles at the absolute knowledge that health costs for Missourians will continue to rise*

Absolutely. In fact, I'll go Missouri one better. I'll write to my congressman in support of a law that would not only exempt Missouri residents from the Affordable Care Act, but from EMTALA as well. That way, the residents of Missouri can sleep safe in the knowledge that they have steadfastly safeguarded their freedom to be dropped from the health insurance system because of a serious, chronic condition, and to die untreated in an ER because of inability to pay. Brings a tear to the eye, really.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Not always. In some regions ability to speak Spanish is pretty much necessity, so people could understand coworkers.

I live in that region. Bilingual is great. Spanish only and your best bet is the Taco Bell kitchen.

You really think availability of such huge supply of cheap labor doesn't lower the wages?

No, inflation, unemployment, and government policy favoring the super-wealthy does that just fine. Real wages haven't risen since the 70's.

[DanteGabriel]

No, inflation, unemployment, and government policy favoring the super-wealthy does that just fine. Real wages haven't risen since the 70's.

Preach it!

An article from the Financial Times on the decades-long squeeze on the American middle class. The true legacy of that epic bullshit artist, Ronald Reagan.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a8a5cb2-9ab2-11df-87e6-00144feab49a.html

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

"Trickle-Down" is an epic load of BS. Look at the current situation....all the big Fortune 500 types are sitting on massive cash reserves...why don't they let it rain like mana from heaven like we've always been told that they would?

Trickle down doesn't even matter when the expressed policy of the government is to give massive banks boat loads of money all the time, and for the Federal Reserve to loan to them at 0% (basically free money). They also subsidize the risk of virtually every major polluting industry at the expense of the nation, basically making you pay to clean up the pollution of virtually every industry. Farm subsidies, oil subsidies, every other kind of subsidy.

Then we come to war spending, which is completely financed by debt, and thus inflation. Inflation is a regressive tax (even Bernanke admits this). So now we have the poorest being hit up to "support the troops", who are also among the poorest since the infantry don't make shit. All that money also goes to the super-rich.

The FDA basically keeps small producers out of the food and drug entries with astronomical entry costs. Same with health insurance providers

It is the consistent policy of this government to favor taking from the poor and giving to the rich, quite literally. I don't give a rats ass what the rich pay in taxes, I care when what I pay is basically going straight to their pocket.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Fair enough. Let's look at how spectacular the victory of the supply-siders has been. We are about to extend the Bush tax-cuts (I hope we don't, but I suspect that we will) while acting like taxes are the reason that we're in our current situation.

Taxes are a big reason we are where we are. Just in a roundabout way. The ability of the government to inflate (read: regressively tax) leads to "deficits don't matter". Knowing that the government will deficit spend and bail out ANY industry, as long as it is big enough, leads to moral hazard and massive market distortions. The ability of the Fed to inflate (regressively tax) without any kind of budget whatsoever is even worse (something like 3 trillion in the last year that they don't even know where it went).

If we had a balanced budget amendment, that prevented deficits, a ginormous portion of this problem could be eliminated. Your bank is collapsing? Sorry to hear that, we'll see about working it into next years budget, after we attempt to raise taxes in order to find the money.

[Frog Eater]

We are about to extend the Bush tax-cuts (I hope we don't, but I suspect that we will).

I sure hope not. I voted democrat in the last election for three reasons: closing Guantanamo, ending the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and reducing the deficit by going back to the Clinton era taxes rates. If they let the republicans run with this and renew the tax cuts the Obama White House will officially fuck up all three things I give a shit about.

[sToNED_CAT]

"Trickle-Down" is an epic load of BS.

No it isn't. The problem is that it is combined with trade deficits and bad trade agreements. The money does trickle down, just not to US.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Opposition to illegal immigration isn't the same as opposing most of those people coming here to work legally.

A fence, or for that matter, any obstacle, is never 100% effective. That's just as true with a border fence as it it with a military obstacle like a minefield. The real purpose of any obstacle is simply to make it more difficult/slower to cross so there is more time for law enforcement or whomever to respond to the incursion. In the case of a border fence, making it more difficult also will discourage some people from making the attempt at all. How many it discourages depends on how difficult it is.

The ultimate goal is to make it sufficiently difficulty to cross illegally that those who wish to work here will just do so legally, thereby paying taxes and withholdings that are now so often avoided by payments under the table, and to make it more difficult for criminal elements to cross. That does not require the Maginot Line covering the entire U.S./Canadian border.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The ultimate goal is to make it sufficiently difficulty to cross illegally that those who wish to work here will just do so legally

You do realize that it is impossible to immigrate to the US as a low-income worker if you aren't married to someone here right?

[TrueMetis]

Thor,

As I said cost is the best argument against improving border security.

I would say the best argument against not building a fence or attempting more patrolling is that no matter how much money you pour into it it just won't work.

That doesn't mean you can't improve border security. For some reason you guys seem to think the only way to improve border security is an actual wall on the border. You know what would work better, a decent security agency that could find out who is planning an attack before they're even near you damn country. Remember any terrorists don't even have to bring the weapons in with them if they're attacking the U.S. They can buy anything they need there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You do realize that it is impossible to immigrate to the US as a low-income worker if you aren't married to someone here right?

Yes. And I think the law should be changed to make guest and temporary worker status much easier.

[DanteGabriel]

Sorry, couldn't dig up the previous Prop 8-specific thread...

A federal judge in California has ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.

Some excerpts from the judge's opinion, for the lawyer types:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

...

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents' case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

...

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. ... The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/prop_8_ruled_unconstitutional.php?ref=fpa

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

A federal judge in California has ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.

How does that work? I thought Prop 8 was an amendment to the state constitution? I'm against prop 8 but this sounds like federal overreaching to me.