Smooth move, Alabama

[Grave_n_idle]

The problem with victimless crimes, is that there is no victim.

The problem is the fact that a crime is being committed. You don't get to decide which laws you follow.

Which is bringing us to the is/ought question, really.

If it 'is' illegal, does that mean it 'ought' to be?

Helping slaves escape was illegal, for example - but most of us, nowadays, would agree that it probably shouldn't be.


Some things shouldn't be 'crimes'. For example, where there's no real 'harm' (Or at least, no real harm to others).

[Des-Bal]

Which is bringing us to the is/ought question, really.

If it 'is' illegal, does that mean it 'ought' to be?

Helping slaves escape was illegal, for example - but most of us, nowadays, would agree that it probably shouldn't be.


Some things shouldn't be 'crimes'. For example, where there's no real 'harm' (Or at least, no real harm to others).

Whether or not it should be illegal is irrelevant to whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law.

[Dyakovo]

Which is bringing us to the is/ought question, really.

If it 'is' illegal, does that mean it 'ought' to be?

Helping slaves escape was illegal, for example - but most of us, nowadays, would agree that it probably shouldn't be.


Some things shouldn't be 'crimes'. For example, where there's no real 'harm' (Or at least, no real harm to others).

Whether or not it should be illegal is irrelevant to whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law.

True. It is however relevant to whether or not the law should be made stricter (as Alabama is trying to do)...

[Des-Bal]

Whether or not it should be illegal is irrelevant to whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law.

True. It is however relevant to whether or not the law should be made stricter (as Alabama is trying to do)...[/quote]

The law isn't making it stricter it's making it easier to punish people breaking it.

[Grave_n_idle]

The law isn't making it stricter it's making it easier to punish people breaking it.

No, I'm pretty sure the law is making it stricter - requiring public schools to verify status of children, for example. Or allowing indefinite detention of people suspected of being illegal immigrants.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which is bringing us to the is/ought question, really.

If it 'is' illegal, does that mean it 'ought' to be?

Helping slaves escape was illegal, for example - but most of us, nowadays, would agree that it probably shouldn't be.


Some things shouldn't be 'crimes'. For example, where there's no real 'harm' (Or at least, no real harm to others).

Whether or not it should be illegal is irrelevant to whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law.

I don't think that's true. If something shouldn't be illegal... then someone shouldn't be punished for doing it.

[Des-Bal]

No, I'm pretty sure the law is making it stricter - requiring public schools to verify status of children, for example. Or allowing indefinite detention of people suspected of being illegal immigrants.

What exactly are you referring to? The law says that someone determined to be in the US unlawfully can be detained until prosecution, there's nothing new about detaining a flight risk which is the exact reason given by the bill. Verifying status isn't making the law stricter it's just making it easier to enforce.

[Des-Bal]

I don't think that's true. If something shouldn't be illegal... then someone shouldn't be punished for doing it.

You don't get to decide which laws you obey.

[Dyakovo]

I don't think that's true. If something shouldn't be illegal... then someone shouldn't be punished for doing it.

You don't get to decide which laws you obey.

Since when? I do it on a daily basis. The state may or may not agree with my decision, but I still make the choice.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I'm pretty sure the law is making it stricter - requiring public schools to verify status of children, for example. Or allowing indefinite detention of people suspected of being illegal immigrants.

What exactly are you referring to? The law says that someone determined to be in the US unlawfully can be detained until prosecution, there's nothing new about detaining a flight risk which is the exact reason given by the bill. Verifying status isn't making the law stricter it's just making it easier to enforce.

The 'reason given by the bill' is a crock, and we both know it. What's our immigrant going to do, skip the country?

It's interesting that you simultaneously try to claim that the law is not being made stricter, AND admit that the law has been amended to be more strict. I'm not quite sure how you accommodate two such conflicting ideas.

As to how the law allows people suspected of being illegal immigrants to be detained indefinitely - the amendment allows indefinite detention for people 'determined' to be illegal immigrants, but the rest of the bill repeatedly places the burden of proof on the suspect to provide evidence that he or she is NOT an illegal immigrant. In other words - ANY suspect can be claimed to be a determined illegal immigrant UNTIL they provide one of the 'accepted' forms of verification.

[F1-Insanity]

The vast majority of illegal immigrants pay taxes, social security, etc - and claim no deductions, and make no demands on the system (because of their immigration status).

But displace an American in a job, and thus this American now is on some government support, because the illegals usually willing to work for cheaper (which is what it is all about for companies). It depresses wages.

And none of these things are ever fully considered in these phony cost benefit analyses.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imnative.html

Immigrant labor creates about three times as many jobs as it displaces, and the overall impact on the economy is slightly positive.

We can test this bogus claim rather easily.

Let's import half a billion immigrants. According to this bogus claim, 1.5 billion jobs would appear.
In fact, if we import the whole world, 12 billion jobs would be instantly created according to this bogus claim.

I think we can all spot the flaw in that reasoning.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't think that's true. If something shouldn't be illegal... then someone shouldn't be punished for doing it.

You don't get to decide which laws you obey.

I don't?

Surely I do exactly that, constantly?

[Grave_n_idle]

But displace an American in a job,

Already accounted for. 'Displacing an American' has been shown to be false.

...and thus this American now is on some government support,

Again, already accounted for. Statistically, that immigrant taking a job actually provides the potential for two citizens (or other immigrants, obviously) to be OFF of government support... rather than the inverse, as you suggest.

It depresses wages.

This part might be true. Increased numbers of available workers can have a wage-depressing impact. But the same is true whether the extra worker supply is immigrant or otherwise.

And none of these things are ever fully considered in these phony cost benefit analyses.

It's not 'phony' just because you disagree.

We can test this bogus claim rather easily.

Let's import half a billion immigrants. According to this bogus claim, 1.5 billion jobs would appear.

That certainly worked at lower levels. I'm guessing, however, that you don't actually have any data to back your figures up?

In fact, if we import the whole world, 12 billion jobs would be instantly created according to this bogus claim.

I think we can all spot the flaw in that reasoning.

If you are about to suggest that the number of jobs is higher than the number of available workers... and try to claim that that disproves the point, I'm going to have to draw your attention to the fact that not every job has to be FILLED, and not every person has to work ONE job.

In other words, you don't have anything that actually makes a real argument against either of the sources. You just misapply logic in ham-fisted fashion, and attempt to discredit sources simply by expressing your opinion that they are wrong.

Unfortunately, you're debating with people with higher standards than that.

[Wikkiwallana]

Which is bringing us to the is/ought question, really.

If it 'is' illegal, does that mean it 'ought' to be?

Helping slaves escape was illegal, for example - but most of us, nowadays, would agree that it probably shouldn't be.


Some things shouldn't be 'crimes'. For example, where there's no real 'harm' (Or at least, no real harm to others).

Whether or not it should be illegal is irrelevant to whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law.

Why? What justification is there for upholding a law that shouldn't exist?

[Wikkiwallana]

The vast majority of illegal immigrants pay taxes, social security, etc - and claim no deductions, and make no demands on the system (because of their immigration status).

But displace an American in a job, and thus this American now is on some government support, because the illegals usually willing to work for cheaper (which is what it is all about for companies). It depresses wages.

And none of these things are ever fully considered in these phony cost benefit analyses.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imnative.html

Immigrant labor creates about three times as many jobs as it displaces, and the overall impact on the economy is slightly positive.

We can test this bogus claim rather easily.

Let's import half a billion immigrants. According to this bogus claim, 1.5 billion jobs would appear.
In fact, if we import the whole world, 12 billion jobs would be instantly created according to this bogus claim.

I think we can all spot the flaw in that reasoning.

Yeah, the flaw is you are assuming the study says it happens instantaneously.

[Calmerica]

You don't get to decide which laws you obey.

I don't?

Surely I do exactly that, constantly?

I think a better way of putting it would be you don't get to decide which laws are enforced. Obviously we can all decide which laws we want to obey - its called free will.

[Wikkiwallana]

I don't?

Surely I do exactly that, constantly?

I think a better way of putting it would be you don't get to decide which laws are enforced. Obviously we can all decide which laws we want to obey - its called free will.

Is this not a democracy, can we not influence our lawmakers?

[Dyakovo]

I think a better way of putting it would be you don't get to decide which laws are enforced. Obviously we can all decide which laws we want to obey - its called free will.

Is this not a democracy, can we not influence our lawmakers?

Strictly speaking, no it isn't...

[Easy Wind]

I'm an american-born citizen. My parents were born in this country. Their parents were born in this country. And the parents of their parents emigrated here legally. Learned the language, assimilated. Yet somehow, an illegal immigrant that doesn't speak english can hop a fence, and get government subsidies to go to college? In my eyes, this is a crime. American citizens can't get jobs because there are illegal immigrants who come here, work for a lower cost, and then send that money to their families back in mexico.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I find it hard to sympathize with people that want to give handouts to illegals, who don't even pay taxes.

Don't blame the illegals who work harder for less than Americans, Blame the companies, which the Republicans buddies with, that exploit them.

Don't forget to blame immigration laws that make legal immigration hopelessly slow.

[Calmerica]

I think a better way of putting it would be you don't get to decide which laws are enforced. Obviously we can all decide which laws we want to obey - its called free will.

Is this not a democracy, can we not influence our lawmakers?

You know what I'm saying, seriously. We don't, in the end, pick which laws get passed and which ones fail. That's the way it is - find a country that's different.

Don't blame the illegals who work harder for less than Americans, Blame the companies, which the Republicans buddies with, that exploit them.

Don't forget to blame immigration laws that make legal immigration hopelessly slow.

All the studies done will bring out the worst cases - families that had to wait 22 years for everyone to come! Forms getting lost, decades going by, oh my!

In reality, the average case does not take that long. Going through all the steps you look at a year or two, if you do everything right. Two guys in my Company immigrated legally as teenagers - it took about 2 years for both of them. There's more steps to go through once you come over with a green card, yes, it isn't easy. Believe me, I understand the anger and frustration. However it's illegal, they cheat taxes, and take jobs. How in the hell can you claim that for every illegal who gets a job, more are created?

The study linked to above was done in 1995 - maybe back then this were true.

http://novatownhall.com/2008/02/03/ille ... llar-jobs/

Not so much anymore.

[Serrland]

In reality, the average case does not take that long. Going through all the steps you look at a year or two, if you do everything right. Two guys in my Company immigrated legally as teenagers - it took about 2 years for both of them. There's more steps to go through once you come over with a green card, yes, it isn't easy. Believe me, I understand the anger and frustration. However it's illegal, they cheat taxes, and take jobs. How in the hell can you claim that for every illegal who gets a job, more are created?

Except that the Immigration Visa quota process is, for some countries, backlogged by DECADES. This shows family-sponsored immigration backlog from Mexico in 2005:

First : Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

Second : Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent

Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:

A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third : Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth : Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.quote]

(From Mexico):
First: 01JAN93
Second (A): 01OCT98
Second (B): 01DEC91
Third: 01JAN93
Fourth: 01FEB91

http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/b ... _2631.html

[Horsefish]

, I understand the anger and frustration. However it's illegal, they cheat taxes, and take jobs. How in the hell can you claim that for every illegal who gets a job, more are created?

I like the fact you keep up with this point despite it being refuted a fair few times on this page alone. Thats dedication, keep those blinkers secure boyo

[Bitchkitten]

I think that this was the intention of those who supported this bill all along.

Absolutely. But they always deny any sort of racism.

[Dyakovo]

I think that this was the intention of those who supported this bill all along.

Absolutely. But they always deny any sort of racism.

TBF it is more likely that these types of laws are because of xenophobia rather than racism...

[Bitchkitten]

Just a question. But what part of illegal don't y'all understand.

What part of having an uneducated underclass being a drag on the country do you not understand? The worst thing we can do for our future is leave them uneducated and a drag on the country.