Reply With Quote
Your an idiot...the Mexican laws are tough to attempt keep South American immigrants from migrating to America in mass...nobody migrates to Mexico..
Agreed.
Your an idiot...the Mexican laws are tough to attempt keep South American immigrants from migrating to America in mass...nobody migrates to Mexico..
And, ours should be tough to attempt to keep Mexicans from migrating to America en mass.
I don't see the issue.
And, actually, you're wrong. Aside from border areas, Mexico is an attractive retirement destination for many Americans.
They are tough, but unenforceable...so what good are new laws going to do? For the Arizona taxpayer its gonna be billions...And, ours should be tough to attempt to keep Mexicans from migrating to America en mass.
I don't see the issue.
Many rich Mexicans migrate to the U.S. to retire, so what?And, actually, you're wrong. Aside from border areas, Mexico is an attractive retirement destination for many Americans.
And, both probably do so legally.
I guess we'll see.
Yeah, except, not so much about keeping South Americans out of the United States...
Mexico acknowledges migrant abuse, pledges changes
Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.
So what you are proposing is basically the Israeli system. Their situation is a bit different (small country with a small population with a disproportionately large border with almost no natural resources surrounded on all sides by aggressive nations/peoples).
Let me posit some issues that may come up with your system:
A) With a volunteer army you may have a higher level of morale due to the fact that the people volunteered.
B) As far as getting out of service, politicians have always found a way to have themselves, as well as their families, either excluded from mandatory service or at least put in 'cushy' BS clerk jobs outside the real spheres of danger. I doubt many politicians would think any differently about the mandatory service as they would still be apart from it.
C) Just because everyone serves doesn't mean taxes will be less of an issue. Health care will still cost money, and for 2 years of every person's young adult life, they wouldn't even have the option of being a productive member of society to add value to the system, and be taxed, to be able to pay for a VA style health system (which from my parents' experience, is quite impressive and extensive).
D) You would likely get refuseniks, much like in Israel now and the US in the Vietnam era, and would have a huge part of the population thrown in jail for that.
E) The military is trying to downsize even while in the middle of 2 wars. What would a military of 90 million do?
Nonetheless, what is wrong with having the same policy as Mexico regarding immigration, foreign investment and entire host of other things ? Fact is, no one has as open of a country as the US yet ...if there is any talk of enforcing the law....the words Nazi and racist come up.
The issue of immigration, legal or otherwise, is unique along the southern border. Further, the changes to immigration law during the Johnson administration, allowing 'reunification' heavily favored Mexican immigrants because Europeans had long since cut ties to their European heritage. Most European Americans don't even KNOW any family in the old country even though they all HAVE family in the old country.
In the 1920's the last time there was a large scale reform in immigration policy, prior to the 60's, was decidedly...purposefully..ANTI Asian, to stem the tide of Chinese immigration.
But I"m not sure, if during any time in our history we've had a huge problem with illegal immigration like we have now simply because it's too hard to illegally immigrate across oceans.
Further, the immigration policies of the US have historically TRIED to have policy based on needs. Granted, there has always been a way for those seeking political asylum to get in, if they can prove their life is in danger, but what we're seeing here, to a degree is simply a government saying to a group of immigrants...you're not what we need. It's happened before. We let a ton of engineers in during the tech boom. It's not so easy to get in now and there are fewer HB1 visa's available for tech workers, and fewer people getting in in ALL areas.
The bottom line is, it's our country, and we have a right to say who gets in and in what numbers. The majority of people support that. Just follow the rules. We let plenty of people in taking the legal route.
Wgaf what race you are.
If you are not American, GTFO. We can't even take care of our own problems caused by our own americants.
No they don't. They are illegal and therefore don't have a SS card. Their employer can't legally have them on the payroll to pay those taxes. They aren't on the books or if they are the employer, if audited, will be prosecuted or at least heavily fined. That's one of the main reasons illegals are so attractive to some business owners. They don't have to match the SS and medicare taxes. So if you take all the wages earned by illegals and tax it at 30% - 15 from them and 15 from the business - you will get an idea of the amount of monies missing from the US Treasury. Also those businesses that choose to hire illegals don't have to pay them health benefits if they don't want to.
I wont argue that illegals don't benefit our society but they are still non citizens with little stake in this country. They are here due to the fact that their own country can't establish a stable economy and therefore there is a lack of viable work. They are here to help provide for their families. That is an admirable goal but let's not forget that they are here illegally. Any country has the right to establish laws in order to protect their sovereinty, ilrespective of the goals and desires of the illegals, however honorable.
Agreed. This country should be able to determine who gets in or who doesn't. This isn't an issue based on race, creed or clolor but what type of individual this nation finds desirable to have as a citizen.
Passing this law as a "cry for help" or "defiant stance" toward the Federal government until we can put the Senate and House and Administration officials before the American people to explain why "we are not ready" to discuss Immigration is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The crime levels will stay the same, except the community won't be as helpful because they feel offended and less inclined to work with police. They could be right in that offense, they could be wrong to take offense - but it will happen and it will have an effect on normal citizens and Local Law Enforcement.
It won't happen here and if it did, you can bet your boy Stringer would be on top of that naming names and shaming them. Texas Reps. Leo Berman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_552239.html ) and Debbie Riddle are planning to introduce legistlation...these people talk so much but don't have the balls to go after the real problems.
That's called capitalism.
I will note that there is a program for citizenship for immigrants who join the military. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but serving a certain number of years allows you citizenship.
How is it artificial? Unions go perfectly in line with capitalism, in theory. (Some laws protecting workers on strike throw it off a little bit.)
not at all.
the isreali system is kind of a basis, but their system is mandatory.
what i purposed earlier is a system where its still 100% voluntary. you just don't have full on citizens rights unless you do it. no right to vote, your education ends at high school (unless you want to float it either yourself or through debt), no universal healthcare, no social security. you would be a 100% private person, however you would still be liable for things like property taxes, income tax, etc. so there would be no military of 90 million or overcrowded jails full of dodgers and the like. plus, i never said it had to be military service, i believe civil service is just as important, especially for those who cannot perform the function of military service, so for those municipalites that have a hard time filling in their police, emts, fireman, teachers, etc...
i made it pretty clear that they didn't pay income tax. i'm sorry that i forgot to mention payroll, which is kind of a 50/50 roll of the dice when it comes to illegal immigrants, some of them have stolen ssn or expired eisn, so they would still not only pay property tax, gas tax, sales tax, hotel tax, any other consumption based tax, but also pay into medicare/social security and will never see a dime back from that. i doubt they would get an income tax refund, because you would have to be pretty bold to try to get a refund with a illegal ssn. not only that but those businesses pay taxes on them as well. the rest still pay consumption based taxes, its not like you can walk into a store and say, " your 8% i'm not a citizen so i'm not paying it"
just an opinion. one that i think a country that is bases on ideals and immigration, not nationality should not and can not afford to keep.
I know dopes is a proper name for you because not only are you a dope, you spout bull that isn't even true.
According to the 2009 HDR this is the percentage of people who live in extreme poverty in Latin America...(less than $1.25/day)
Argentina...4.5%
Bolivia...19.6%
Brazil...5.2%
Colombia..16%
El Salvador...11%
Guatemala...11.7%
Honduras...18.2%
That's not even all the Latin American countries. Stop making baseless claims. I'd say alot of people that live off less than $1 a day live in Latin America.
I know it's just a pipe dream, but that would never fly in the United States. The Cons ution exists specifically to prevent things like taht from happening.
i know it is, and never will happen here. it's just my long term dream solution to the immigration issue.
i do however believe that most of this country has the cons ution wrong. it was never meant to be a bible or the 1297 version of the magna carta, it's a living ing do ent. it's amendable to deal with the problems facing a changing nation. it's the will of the collective people of our nation and should not be seen as the ten commandments, if there is something in it we don't agree with or that needs changing we should not be afraid to do it, that would make our founding fathers happy.
*** ing la migra made me doublepost***
Last edited by panic giraffe; 04-29-2010 at 12:17 PM.
I am aware of that, as that is how my father got his citizenship.
True, even in Israel, some students as well as women do not have to serve. And I understand your distinction in that you are not compelled to joint the military except to have 'full' citizenship, where incentive is not compulsion.
I still feel that there is something that may overly militarize the country: would this eventually lead to 'haves' and 'have nots' in this system, should people be voted out of the right to join a service corps?
If it is voluntary, how will this address the issue of the politicians being separate from the citizens they deploy to war?
The union pretty much fought the civil war with German and Irish immigrants. About 30%. They'd have lost without 'em.
So, immigration has, historically, had a purpose.
Getting your lawn mowed cheap, ain't a good reason.
Last edited by word; 04-29-2010 at 12:34 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions