The people come together as one

[Army of GOD]

How much money do you think it would cost the US to fully implement its immigration laws Patches? And how much money would be lost from the economy if all those workers left?

I'm fascinated by your desire to see the US economy crippled and government spending go through the roof, but does your hatred of immigrants really justify the practical consequences?

Just tax immigrant labor from Mexico and slap down a few tariffs, and or put a 10% wire transfer fee on all money sent to Mexico from the US.

Let Mexico pay for it.

So it's about implementing a discriminating law which focuses on one specific minority? Is that even legal over there? I know it would be unconstitutional this side of the pond.

it's pretty damn difficult for any other nationality to enter the US illegal (I guess, other than Canadians)

after a quick google, I found this:




Now, I trust a infographic with no sources as much as a trust a person pretending to be a chinese woman on a Risk-like online website, but I doubt this is that far from the truth. Mexicans make up the majority of illegal immigrants by a wide margin I would reckon


I'm not saying I agree with the legislation...I think it's counterproductive, but if I were to support stopping illegal immigration, I would start with La Mexique

I'd start with working out how much it would cost to find, arrest, process, and deport 11.4 million people.

Reading comprehension was never your strong point.

[Symmetry]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

Your proposed tax on just Mexico and Mexican immigrants does seem discriminatory, what with the discriminating and all. But hey, that's just pointing out the obvious.

How do you feel about the idea of "No taxation without representation"?

Reading comprehension was never your strong point.

Cute cop out mate, but I can accept when someone throws in the towel.

Some of your points were interesting, but yeah, when it came down to it, they collapsed under the slightest of jabs.

[GabonX]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

Your proposed tax on just Mexico and Mexican immigrants does seem discriminatory, what with the discriminating and all. But hey, that's just pointing out the obvious.

How do you feel about the idea of "No taxation without representation"?

Reading comprehension was never your strong point.

Cute cop out mate, but I can accept when someone throws in the towel.

Some of your points were interesting, but yeah, when it came down to it, they collapsed under the slightest of jabs.

It's always the same thing with you. Somebody posts something clear and cognizant, you attack them for saying things they didn't say alluding to points they didn't make, and then you act like you won when they don't defend the position they never took in the first place.

It gets old.

In this case I literally argued the exact opposite thing you said I did in that I suggested making Mexican immigrants pay the exact same taxes that everyone else in the United States already pays by enforcing laws already on the books, and that if there's a problem with having a wire transfer fee just from the US to Mexico it could be expanded to cover all countries where money is sent. Of course that doesn't stop you from being a smug and deceitful prick.

[Symmetry]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

Your proposed tax on just Mexico and Mexican immigrants does seem discriminatory, what with the discriminating and all. But hey, that's just pointing out the obvious.

How do you feel about the idea of "No taxation without representation"?

Reading comprehension was never your strong point.

Cute cop out mate, but I can accept when someone throws in the towel.

Some of your points were interesting, but yeah, when it came down to it, they collapsed under the slightest of jabs.

It's always the same thing with you. Somebody posts something clear and cognizant, you attack them for saying things they didn't say alluding to points they didn't make, and then you act like you won when they don't defend the position they never took in the first place.

It gets old.

In this case I literally argued the exact opposite thing you said I did in that I suggested making Mexican immigrants pay the exact same taxes that everyone else in the United States already pays by enforcing laws already on the books, and that if there's a problem with having a wire transfer fee just from the US to Mexico it could be expanded to cover all countries where money is sent. Of course that doesn't stop you from being a smug and deceitful prick.

Hey, my questions got you to expand on your points. If your point was clear and cognizant, after all, why did you have to explain it in the face of criticism?

I have a tendency to point out weaknesses in arguments- for example that you target Mexicans while claiming that you're not picking out any group, discriminationally. Or that your arguments are fundamentally impractical, while you suggest there's a magic wand that will make them enforced.

How do you feel about "no taxation without representation"?

[GabonX]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

Your proposed tax on just Mexico and Mexican immigrants does seem discriminatory, what with the discriminating and all. But hey, that's just pointing out the obvious.

How do you feel about the idea of "No taxation without representation"?

Reading comprehension was never your strong point.

Cute cop out mate, but I can accept when someone throws in the towel.

Some of your points were interesting, but yeah, when it came down to it, they collapsed under the slightest of jabs.

It's always the same thing with you. Somebody posts something clear and cognizant, you attack them for saying things they didn't say alluding to points they didn't make, and then you act like you won when they don't defend the position they never took in the first place.

It gets old.

In this case I literally argued the exact opposite thing you said I did in that I suggested making Mexican immigrants pay the exact same taxes that everyone else in the United States already pays by enforcing laws already on the books, and that if there's a problem with having a wire transfer fee just from the US to Mexico it could be expanded to cover all countries where money is sent. Of course that doesn't stop you from being a smug and deceitful prick.

Hey, my questions got you to expand on your points. If your point was clear and cognizant, after all, why did you have to explain it in the face of criticism?

I have a tendency to point out weaknesses in arguments- for example that you target Mexicans while claiming that you're not picking out any group, discriminationally. Or that your arguments are fundamentally impractical, while you suggest there's a magic wand that will make them enforced.

How do you feel about "no taxation without representation"?

It's a good slogan, and for the most part I agree with it in regards to people living in their own countries. That said if someone goes to another country by choice, they need to accept the terms of that nation.

[Symmetry]

Good to see you're back on civil terms with me Gabon. Are you really OK with workers having a say in where there taxes go if they're Mexican

[patches70]

How much money do you think it would cost the US to fully implement its immigration laws Patches?

I don't care what the immigration law is, Sym. If Congress wants to give amnesty or try and deport every illegal alien or whatever in between I don't care. My point was that the President can't say "people from X country or X religion, can no longer come to the US", only Congress can do that, not the President. So Trump blabbering on about banning muslims is only to get votes.

And another thing, any law that is passed and then can't be enforced shoulds to be repealed. Otherwise you get an uneven and unjust use of said law not to mention the idiocy and moral grayness of passing laws you can't or won't enforce. There are a whole lot of laws like that. But that all takes an act of Congress, or a ruling by the SCOTUS. I, nor the President can just say "Ok, that's it, the law is repealed".

I'm fascinated by your desire to see the US economy crippled and government spending go through the roof,

A trillion dollar deficit year in and year out isn't already through the roof? 17+ trillion in debt isn't already through the roof? The US economy is recovered and isn't already teetering? Yeah, nice one Sym.
It's already crippled. It's no wonder that voters are responding to a candidate who isn't campaigning on more of the same. Will it work? I have no idea and it doesn't matter anyway because this house of cards of an economic system is going to crash and burn no matter what. It's not like it hasn't happened before, the current US economic system is only around 43 or so years old sym. Very old actually for an economic system built on a fiat currency system. Most collapse a lot sooner. Our system is overdue.

but does your hatred of immigrants really justify the practical consequences?

Nice red herring. When you read things do you just add in whatever you think? Your grasp of the English language seems tenuous at best. I think you might be projecting. You have some form of dyslexia where take any comment out of context or project some insidious meaning.

Illegal alien, every country in the world (including yours you dumb shit) has laws regarding illegal immigrants. There is nothing racist about it. Countries have the right to decide who comes into their country. It's just law, dude, got nothing to do with hate. If you don't like it, write to a US Congressman and tell him/her.

Anyway, have fun twisting everything to some nutbag definition if you want. I'm merely stating why Trump has appeal to voters. You fools can either accept it or not, it doesn't change the reality. And if you can't accept it then the world is just going to keep turning for the worse to you. You're not much different from the political pundits and politicians who just can't understand why Trump is doing so well. It's funny actually that people are so divorced from reality that they can't see what's in front of their faces.
The American voter is pissed off at the Republicans and Democrats and in response the American electorate is reacting understandably by voting for someone the the political and protected class can't stand.

Trump is just the beginning and the one's who hold the lion's share of the blame for this are the career politicians themselves who've screwed the American electorate over and over again.
One thing is for sure, it can go a whole hell of a lot worse than Trump getting elected. But that's for another thread I suppose. Everyone should do whatever they feel is right and trust in Democracy. Sometimes things don't go how one would want it, but that's how it goes.

[Symmetry]

Yes Patches, when I read things I add my own thoughts. It's a kind of critical dialogue that I find useful. I just assumed that most people did the same.

I had no idea you'd explode if I simply pointed out that you didn't understand what you were arguing for.

But hey, you're the self proclaimed voice of the American voter here.

Carry on mate.

[GabonX]

Good to see you're back on civil terms with me Gabon. Are you really OK with workers having a say in where there taxes go if they're Mexican

The taxes that they pay to the Mexican government they can have say over. In the US not so much, and if they don't like that they should stay in Mexico. Really, unless they're coming here legally they should stay in Mexico, but if they sneak in illegally they should be taxed like anyone else and they don't necessarily get a say as to what Americans do with that money.

[mrswdk]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

Your proposed tax on just Mexico and Mexican immigrants does seem discriminatory, what with the discriminating and all. But hey, that's just pointing out the obvious.

How do you feel about the idea of "No taxation without representation"?

The British Home Office sets different visa requirements for people based upon their nationality. For a Chinese person to visit the UK as a tourist, they have to go through a lengthy application process and put down a 'deposit' of thousands of pounds as insurance against them illegally overstaying; a Malaysian can just turn up and travel for 6 months whenever they like, don't even need to fill out a form. Does that mean the British government is racist?

[mrswdk]

It's a good slogan, and for the most part I agree with it in regards to people living in their own countries. That said if someone goes to another country by choice, they need to accept the terms of that nation.

Taxpayers only get a say if they were born in the place where they currently live? Do you also apply that logic to, say, a Californian who moves to Nevada?

[GabonX]

It's a good slogan, and for the most part I agree with it in regards to people living in their own countries. That said if someone goes to another country by choice, they need to accept the terms of that nation.

Taxpayers only get a say if they were born in the place where they currently live? Do you also apply that logic to, say, a Californian who moves to Nevada?

In regards to US citizens moving from state to state it's not a matter of where someone was born, but rather where they declare residency.

On the federal level everyone gets a vote in their home state where they're a resident. At the state level people have to declare residency to vote in state and local elections. People who work in one state and live in another may pay taxes where they work but don't get to vote in that state's elections.

American citizens can move from state to state freely but they have to declare residency where they want to vote. Each state has it's own process for declaring residency. Residency is often tied to a person's driver's license which is used as official ID and regulated at the state level. I believe most states require declaring residency and obtaining a state driver's license after a certain amount of time, assuming a person wants to continue driving legally.

In regards to non-US citizens, they're not supposed to vote in federal elections, but they may be allowed to vote in some local elections.

[mrswdk]

So on principle, if a non-US citizen declares residency in the US then there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote in state and national elections?

[GabonX]

So on principle, if a non-US citizen declares residency in the US then there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote in state and national elections?

Non citizens don't get to vote in state and federal elections. If they want to vote they need to become citizens.

[mrswdk]

Re 'no taxation without representation' you said:

for the most part I agree with it in regards to people living in their own countries. That said if someone goes to another country by choice, they need to accept the terms of that nation.

My question is, why do you think that out of all the people who live in the US and pay taxes towards American federal and state governments, only US nationals should have a say in how the US is run?

Given that all you're offering in response is quoting the law, can I take it that your answer is 'because the law says so'?

[saxitoxin]

Re 'no taxation without representation' you said:

for the most part I agree with it in regards to people living in their own countries. That said if someone goes to another country by choice, they need to accept the terms of that nation.

My question is, why do you think that out of all the people who live in the US and pay taxes towards American federal and state governments, only US nationals should have a say in how the US is run?

Given that all you're offering in response is quoting the law, can I take it that your answer is 'because the law says so'?

Well, in defense of Gabby, no taxation without representation is a slogan, not the law. Slogans serve as general guidelines, not bedrock commandments. If I go into KFC I can't walk around the restaurant licking everyone's fingers just because the KFC slogan is it's finger-licking good - at least that's what Sheriff Bill Brown told me last time.

The law is one person, one vote. If someone is not a U.S. citizen they are, by default (except for a miniscule fraction of the world's population), a citizen of some other nation-state and hold some form, either actual or existential, of participatory rights there.

[GabonX]

Re 'no taxation without representation' you said:

for the most part I agree with it in regards to people living in their own countries. That said if someone goes to another country by choice, they need to accept the terms of that nation.

My question is, why do you think that out of all the people who live in the US and pay taxes towards American federal and state governments, only US nationals should have a say in how the US is run?

Given that all you're offering in response is quoting the law, can I take it that your answer is 'because the law says so'?

US elections should represent the interests of it's citizens, not that of people who are not US citizens. It's amazing that this is even a question.

What you're saying is like asking why India, Pakistan, and the rest of the world don't get to decide who runs China and what policy there will be.

[notyou2]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

WHY DON"T YOU JUST SHOOT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT LOOK DIFFERENT?????

[GabonX]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

WHY DON"T YOU JUST SHOOT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT LOOK DIFFERENT?????

I like blonde and Asian women.

[notyou2]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

WHY DON"T YOU JUST SHOOT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT LOOK DIFFERENT?????

I like blonde and Asian women.

You're a racist bigot like Drumpf. You have been revealed by your hate.

[Symmetry]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

Your proposed tax on just Mexico and Mexican immigrants does seem discriminatory, what with the discriminating and all. But hey, that's just pointing out the obvious.

How do you feel about the idea of "No taxation without representation"?

The British Home Office sets different visa requirements for people based upon their nationality. For a Chinese person to visit the UK as a tourist, they have to go through a lengthy application process and put down a 'deposit' of thousands of pounds as insurance against them illegally overstaying; a Malaysian can just turn up and travel for 6 months whenever they like, don't even need to fill out a form. Does that mean the British government is racist?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35243763

The visa agreement is a reciprocal one.

I don't see anything about a deposit.

[mrswdk]

Re 'no taxation without representation' you said:

for the most part I agree with it in regards to people living in their own countries. That said if someone goes to another country by choice, they need to accept the terms of that nation.

My question is, why do you think that out of all the people who live in the US and pay taxes towards American federal and state governments, only US nationals should have a say in how the US is run?

Given that all you're offering in response is quoting the law, can I take it that your answer is 'because the law says so'?

US elections should represent the interests of it's citizens, not that of people who are not US citizens. It's amazing that this is even a question.

What you're saying is like asking why India, Pakistan, and the rest of the world don't get to decide who runs China and what policy there will be.

No it's not. It's like asking why Indian, Pakistani and other people living and working in China should have any less of a say in how China is run than Chinese people living and working in China.

[mrswdk]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

Your proposed tax on just Mexico and Mexican immigrants does seem discriminatory, what with the discriminating and all. But hey, that's just pointing out the obvious.

How do you feel about the idea of "No taxation without representation"?

The British Home Office sets different visa requirements for people based upon their nationality. For a Chinese person to visit the UK as a tourist, they have to go through a lengthy application process and put down a 'deposit' of thousands of pounds as insurance against them illegally overstaying; a Malaysian can just turn up and travel for 6 months whenever they like, don't even need to fill out a form. Does that mean the British government is racist?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35243763

The visa agreement is a reciprocal one.

I don't see anything about a deposit.

That's because that page is a brief news article announcing a new visa agreement, not a policy document outlining all visa rules and requirements.

My point was that nationals of different countries get treated differently when applying for visas to the UK. You said taxing Mexican migrants only is racist - is it also racist that the Home Office requires citizens of some countries to meet certain financial benchmarks before they can come to the UK, but not citizens of other countries?

[GabonX]

Mexico already has tariffs on American goods, so it's fair and rational to do the same thing on Mexican goods coming into the United States. Mexican labor should be taxed just like anyone else's. We don't need new laws in this respect, but rather just to enforce laws already on the books.

As for setting a wire transfer fee regarding money going from the US to Mexico, there's nothing wrong with the United States establishing a cost to do business in it's borders. If you have a problem with limiting this just to funds transferred to Mexico, the fee could expand to all money sent out of the US via wire transfer. That means that instead of the $1.35 billion we would gather from money sent to Mexico, the United States would collect $12 billion a year, more than enough to build a wall.

It's not racist or discriminatory. Every other country has programs like this in place, and the United States is more than in it's right to do it.

WHY DON"T YOU JUST SHOOT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT LOOK DIFFERENT?????

I like blonde and Asian women.

You're a racist bigot like Drumpf. You have been revealed by your hate.

If you're going to accuse someone of being racist and bigotted you're better off not repeating racist and biggotted smear campaigns about their ethnic family name when you do it. It makes you a racist and bigoted hypocrite.