bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
The reason is that I believe our nation has a "carrying capacity". I believe all nations do.
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
The reason is that I believe our nation has a "carrying capacity". I believe all nations do.
What is the carrying capacity of the US? Or an estimate?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
The reason is that I believe our nation has a "carrying capacity". I believe all nations do.
What is the carrying capacity of the US? Or an estimate?
Not something I am going to even try to estimate off the top of my head.
I don't know what our carrying capacity is or what a reasonable level of immigration is. I just believe its likely we will be reaching it, if we have not already.
I don't see a problem with saying that people can come here to work, then leave, as long as the conditions in which they work are reasonable, their kids get to go to school, etc. AND as long as they know in advance the conditions. Not necessarily "reasonable" by our standards, but not degrading. (bunkhouses for single men, but clean, safe, air conditioned, etc.). I also think its OK to ask that they pay a bit extra for having kids in school, though not so much that kids are excluded. Mostly, I think despite what Phattscotty attests, the kids in school issue is really a tangent. It has to do with the fact that most employers of illegals are not paying the right taxes and so forth.
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
So everyone here illegally is barred from ever coming in legally?
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? I'm afraid I don't at all see how your question relates to my statement. Care to do a re-take?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
The reason is that I believe our nation has a "carrying capacity". I believe all nations do.
I have no idea what you're talking about, to be honest. Carrying capacity? How is such a thing determined? What is our "capacity" now? Why would we have such a thing? Sounds like an arbitrary limit to me.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
The reason is that I believe our nation has a "carrying capacity". I believe all nations do.
I have no idea what you're talking about, to be honest. Carrying capacity? How is such a thing determined? What is our "capacity" now? Why would we have such a thing? Sounds like an arbitrary limit to me.
It is a biological term referring to food availability, space allocation, etc for a species or group of species. For us, it is not so much arbitrary as changing. I don't really know where we sit on the scale and maybe even looking at things from that direction is wrong. I do think that we have to have some limits and that current policies are geared too much toward race and other factors that really ought not to be a part of the equation. I am also not comfortable with just blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, though "kick them out on their rear" is not equitable, either.
If there were no jobs, no need, they would not be here to begin with. They should be able to come legally, but a different measure needs to be used for citizenship.
Symmetry wrote:Well, the US has a lot of food and a lot of space, so I guess it has a large carrying capacity, if that's how it's defined.
For humans, that would include everything needed to keep up lifestyles with cars, fancy houses, etc. So... a lot more than you might think. Also, we would have to leave room for more than just humans. We do depend on the natural environment, even if most of us rarely deal with it directly.
Symmetry wrote:Well, the US has a lot of food and a lot of space, so I guess it has a large carrying capacity, if that's how it's defined.
For humans, that would include everything needed to keep up lifestyles with cars, fancy houses, etc. So... a lot more than you might think. Also, we would have to leave room for more than just humans. We do depend on the natural environment, even if most of us rarely deal with it directly.
I don't really think that "fancy houses" for the few should be prioritised over a basic standard of living for the many. I don't think that the rest of the world is obliged to remain in poverty in order to maintain a certain standard of Western lifestyle.
Of course, it's the natural environment in other countries that truly suffers to maintain the pristine condition of natural spaces in the West.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Well, the US has a lot of food and a lot of space, so I guess it has a large carrying capacity, if that's how it's defined.
For humans, that would include everything needed to keep up lifestyles with cars, fancy houses, etc. So... a lot more than you might think. Also, we would have to leave room for more than just humans. We do depend on the natural environment, even if most of us rarely deal with it directly.
I don't really think that "fancy houses" for the few should be prioritised over a basic standard of living for the many. I don't think that the rest of the world is obliged to remain in poverty in order to maintain a certain standard of Western lifestyle.
Of course, it's the natural environment in other countries that truly suffers to maintain the pristine condition of natural spaces in the West.
Per the first part, even a basic house here would be fancy in many places. However, even a fully eco-friendly house still has limits. Per the second, to a large extent, yes.
And that actually brings up an interesting point, which rather counters mine.. we have taken so much from other countries and so reduced their people's abilities to support themselves that we probably do have an obligation to them. Ironically, Mexico is probably a fair way down that list, though.
Symmetry wrote:Well, the US has a lot of food and a lot of space, so I guess it has a large carrying capacity, if that's how it's defined.
For humans, that would include everything needed to keep up lifestyles with cars, fancy houses, etc. So... a lot more than you might think. Also, we would have to leave room for more than just humans. We do depend on the natural environment, even if most of us rarely deal with it directly.
I don't really think that "fancy houses" for the few should be prioritised over a basic standard of living for the many. I don't think that the rest of the world is obliged to remain in poverty in order to maintain a certain standard of Western lifestyle.
Of course, it's the natural environment in other countries that truly suffers to maintain the pristine condition of natural spaces in the West.
In my country, people are free to build/purchase however large or small a home they want to. I myself could afford much, MUCH nicer. I choose to live in a studio across the street from my work to save money on housing and gas. If the opportunity to live in a large home in my retirement becomes unavailable in the future, then there is no need for me to live beneath my means and work hard to save for my goal to retire in a nice large comfortable home for my entire family if I so choose to. It's all about providing for my family. period.
I believe with all my heart that so long as I keep working hard and live my life responsibly, my family will be taken care of, and if hard times come like they certainly ALWAYS DO, then I should be able to provide a cushion for my family. period.
Symmetry wrote:Well, the US has a lot of food and a lot of space, so I guess it has a large carrying capacity, if that's how it's defined.
For humans, that would include everything needed to keep up lifestyles with cars, fancy houses, etc. So... a lot more than you might think. Also, we would have to leave room for more than just humans. We do depend on the natural environment, even if most of us rarely deal with it directly.
I don't really think that "fancy houses" for the few should be prioritised over a basic standard of living for the many. I don't think that the rest of the world is obliged to remain in poverty in order to maintain a certain standard of Western lifestyle.
Of course, it's the natural environment in other countries that truly suffers to maintain the pristine condition of natural spaces in the West.
Per the first part, even a basic house here would be fancy in many places. However, even a fully eco-friendly house still has limits. Per the second, to a large extent, yes.
And that actually brings up an interesting point, which rather counters mine.. we have taken so much from other countries and so reduced their people's abilities to support themselves that we probably do have an obligation to them. Ironically, Mexico is probably a fair way down that list, though.
Well then get going on writing a check to those countries you feel your gov't has wronged. seriously, step up and put your money where your mouth is cuz if you don't yous a chump
Phatscotty wrote:In my country, people are free to build/purchase however large or small a home they want to. I myself could afford much, MUCH nicer. I choose to live in a studio across the street from my work to save money on housing and gas. If the opportunity to live in a large home in my retirement becomes unavailable in the future, then there is no need for me to live beneath my means and work hard to save for my goal to retire in a nice large comfortable home for my entire family if I so choose to. It's all about providing for my family. period.
Choosing a small house is a good idea, but the problem with saying that everyone should be able to buy however large a home they want is that right now, they won't really and truly be paying the full cost for that house. They will not be paying anything for the impact that house will have on the future.
So, we have tracts of very nice-looking homes in what used to be some of the best farmland in the world in Central California. And "mountain retreats" where prime timberland used to sit... etc. I am not saying all of that is bad, but that the true costs are not taken into account. They need to be.
Phatscotty wrote:Well then get going on writing a check to those countries you feel your gov't has wronged. seriously, step up and put your money where your mouth is cuz if you don't yous a chump
Not about passing out checks. Its about helping to sustain economies, buying "fair trade" items (not necessarily those things labeled "fair trade", but those things that really are) and perhaps letting some come here to build lives here. Its also about each of us considering the real and true impacts of what we do, not just the bank checks.
But don't get me wrong. I don't fully live up to that model myself. I try, I think I should, but fall short in many ways.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
The reason is that I believe our nation has a "carrying capacity". I believe all nations do.
I have no idea what you're talking about, to be honest. Carrying capacity? How is such a thing determined? What is our "capacity" now? Why would we have such a thing? Sounds like an arbitrary limit to me.
PLAYER57832 wrote:It is a biological term referring to food availability, space allocation, etc for a species or group of species. For us, it is not so much arbitrary as changing. I don't really know where we sit on the scale and maybe even looking at things from that direction is wrong.
We have so much food we pay our farmers not to plant/harvest it.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I do think that we have to have some limits and that current policies are geared too much toward race and other factors that really ought not to be a part of the equation. I am also not comfortable with just blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, though "kick them out on their rear" is not equitable, either.
As long as they're not criminals, why not blanket them in?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
PLAYER57832 wrote:It is a biological term referring to food availability, space allocation, etc for a species or group of species. For us, it is not so much arbitrary as changing. I don't really know where we sit on the scale and maybe even looking at things from that direction is wrong.
We have so much food we pay our farmers not to plant/harvest it.
Only certain crops, but that gets complicated.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I do think that we have to have some limits and that current policies are geared too much toward race and other factors that really ought not to be a part of the equation. I am also not comfortable with just blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, though "kick them out on their rear" is not equitable, either.
As long as they're not criminals, why not blanket them in?[/quote] I don't think we have room for everyone who wants to come here. I am not sure that any nation really does. But beyond that.. I am not real clear on what I want.
Symmetry wrote:Well, the US has a lot of food and a lot of space, so I guess it has a large carrying capacity, if that's how it's defined.
For humans, that would include everything needed to keep up lifestyles with cars, fancy houses, etc. So... a lot more than you might think. Also, we would have to leave room for more than just humans. We do depend on the natural environment, even if most of us rarely deal with it directly.
I don't really think that "fancy houses" for the few should be prioritised over a basic standard of living for the many. I don't think that the rest of the world is obliged to remain in poverty in order to maintain a certain standard of Western lifestyle.
Of course, it's the natural environment in other countries that truly suffers to maintain the pristine condition of natural spaces in the West.
In my country, people are free to build/purchase however large or small a home they want to. I myself could afford much, MUCH nicer. I choose to live in a studio across the street from my work to save money on housing and gas. If the opportunity to live in a large home in my retirement becomes unavailable in the future, then there is no need for me to live beneath my means and work hard to save for my goal to retire in a nice large comfortable home for my entire family if I so choose to. It's all about providing for my family. period.
I believe with all my heart that so long as I keep working hard and live my life responsibly, my family will be taken care of, and if hard times come like they certainly ALWAYS DO, then I should be able to provide a cushion for my family. period.
That's awesome! Who built your studio?
Well, that's an unfair question. I'm sure that no illegal immigrants were involved in its construction. Illegals mostly steal white people's jobs, right? And if you give them money via an agent, it's not like you're really cashing in on crime yourself.
I'm glad that you made the distinction between Americans (White Americans if you live in Arizona) who work to provide for their families, and illegals who work solely to annoy conservatives, and possibly to pay for crime.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
PLAYER57832 wrote:It is a biological term referring to food availability, space allocation, etc for a species or group of species. For us, it is not so much arbitrary as changing. I don't really know where we sit on the scale and maybe even looking at things from that direction is wrong.
We have so much food we pay our farmers not to plant/harvest it.
Only certain crops, but that gets complicated.
I certainly realize that...I do live in "farm country", after all.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
PLAYER57832 wrote:It is a biological term referring to food availability, space allocation, etc for a species or group of species. For us, it is not so much arbitrary as changing. I don't really know where we sit on the scale and maybe even looking at things from that direction is wrong.
We have so much food we pay our farmers not to plant/harvest it.
Only certain crops, but that gets complicated.
I certainly realize that...I do live in "farm country", after all.
Basically, we have gone from a nation that was able to export enough food to feed several countries to a country that, if we keep going, will have to import food. It has more to do with land allocation and policies than ability, but anyway... guess this has spun off far enough. And, I am not thinking at my best right now, anyway.
Legalizing everyone would be a wonderful step. It would allow everyone to concentrate on real crime, instead of just criminalizing people who only want to work.
But, to work, it would have to be paired with extra taxes for hiring people who are not citizens. That is, after all the basic charge -- that these illegals take jobs and don't pay taxes.
Legalizing everyone would be a wonderful step. It would allow everyone to concentrate on real crime, instead of just criminalizing people who only want to work.
But, to work, it would have to be paired with extra taxes for hiring people who are not citizens. That is, after all the basic charge -- that these illegals take jobs and don't pay taxes.
Legalizing everyone would be a wonderful step. It would allow everyone to concentrate on real crime, instead of just criminalizing people who only want to work.
But, to work, it would have to be paired with extra taxes for hiring people who are not citizens. That is, after all the basic charge -- that these illegals take jobs and don't pay taxes.
that won't work.
Evidence?
Because the evidence shows that "cracking down" really only increases crime. To contrast, I know many hard-working, productive citizens who were legalized in CA.
Because then the same companies would forego the new legalized people and hire more illegals, which would be cheaper. Or using Player's plan of extra taxes on employers of the new legal workers, that would make them more expensive than citizens, so the employer would not hire the new legal workers. Which would make them unemployed and dependent on society. So we would still have people crossing the border, yet have another 20 million on social programs. Great resolution.
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
Legalizing everyone would be a wonderful step. It would allow everyone to concentrate on real crime, instead of just criminalizing people who only want to work.
But, to work, it would have to be paired with extra taxes for hiring people who are not citizens. That is, after all the basic charge -- that these illegals take jobs and don't pay taxes.
that won't work.
Evidence?
Because the evidence shows that "cracking down" really only increases crime. To contrast, I know many hard-working, productive citizens who were legalized in CA.
Cracking down does not increase crime. Cracking down increases ARREST RATE. The crime was already happening. More officers can catch more criminals. Taking your logic to extremes, maybe we should get rid of the police! That would take crime to zero!
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
