We are Americans*

Quote: P90

Of course it doesn't. Man's law needs to be obeyed if and because it is fair and mutually beneficial.


You can look up stupid laws about not walking by a particular lake on Thursdays or freely shooting Scotsmen in a particular locale. These are not upheld. At a very slow rate, obsolete laws are being repelled. There is a number of more recent laws that are offensive as well, and fortunately they as well are rarely followed.

What's your point? Are you saying that borders or sovereignty or a country is a "stupid law", equivalent to freely shooting Scotsmen?
Is it only the US sovereignty that you have this little respect for, or just any country? If you travel to Mexico or Canada or Costa Rica, do you feel the border control people at the port of entry are doing stupid and obsolete job? Do you feel it would be all right for you to move to Europe, and take up an illegal job there if it made sense financially?

In a word, do you believe all borders should be removed or only US/Mexico border?

Quote:

Have you ever violated any law of your country?

This is a yes or no question.
If yes, please turn yourself in with proof of your crimes and insist on being prosecuted.
If no, please finally patch up the Commandments, it's time to remove "Thou shalt not covet" and add "Thou shalt not cross borders without a visa". And what's with the shellfish.

What shellfish? The answer is "no". And I have no idea what it has to do with the Commandments in your mind. We are talking about people's law, not God's. If any Bible quote is appropriate here, it is "Quae sunt Caesaris Caesari".

Quote: weaselman

I also pay taxes, and they don't, but that's secondary.

Actually, everyone pays taxes. Every time you purchase something, there are taxes to pay. Not all taxes are paid as checks to IRS.
Not that it matters, income at or below minimum wage levels has zero income tax anyway. Maybe missing some social security taxes, but they don't get social security.

Quote: weaselman

I have more right to be here because I have not violated any laws, and they have.

There I was thinking you're actually Jesus, the one without sin, and started prepare my pleadings to you about amendments you should make to the Bible while you're here, and then it struck me -

Pretending for a moment to ignore how laughable such a claim is, it actually contradicts your previous statements:

Quote: weaselman

A cop sitting in the car behind me pulled me over after the light went green and fined me $90 for using a cell phone.

There are also these nice little snippets about how much respect you really have for the law:

Quote: weaselman

I am guessing you have a lot of confidence in all those legislators, and don't know about any other stupid law ever coming out of them, so you find a suggestion that they have done something less than perfectly so hilarious?

Quote: weaselman

I think, it is crazy to expect me to learn and remember 50 different sets of traffic laws.

Ignorance of the law is no defense. And your crimes are of a worse nature than theirs - they failed to get some ink on a sheet of paper, but you broke and keep breaking traffic safety regulations, designed to stop you from endangering human lives.

So, being the disrespectful, authority-scorning law-breaker that you are - do you have more right to be in US because you're a liar, or because you are not ashamed of being a liar?

Quote: P90

Actually, everyone pays taxes. Every time you purchase something, there are taxes to pay. Not all taxes are paid as checks to IRS.

Yeah ... and also real estate taxes if they buy a house. And the tolls. Of course.
I am sorry, for being so unclear, I assumed you would understand what taxes I was talking about without my spelling them all out explicitly.
Please let me clarify. I meant income taxes, and SS/Medicare.

Quote:

There I was thinking you're actually Jesus, the one without sin,

You keep mixing up people's laws and God's. No, I am not without sin. I simply respect the law.

Quote:

Ignorance of the law is no defense. And your crimes are of a worse nature than theirs - they failed to get some ink on a sheet of paper, but you broke and keep breaking traffic safety regulations, designed to stop you from endangering human lives.

Ignorance may not be a defense in criminal court (and these are not criminal violations, and I actually have used my ignorance of a particular state's law as a defense in the past, quite successfully), but it does indicate, that my infractions are not knowing and purposeful like theirs, that's the difference.

Quote:

So, being the disrespectful, authority-scorning law-breaker that you are - do you have more right to be in US because you're a liar, or because you are not ashamed of being a liar?

No. I have more right to be in the US because I am a US citizen (and because I respect US laws).

Quote: weaselman

I am sorry, for being so unclear, I assumed you would understand what taxes I was talking about without my spelling them all out explicitly.
Please let me clarify. I meant income taxes, and SS/Medicare.

You don't pay income taxes on sub-$9,500 incomes - which they have.
They get neither social security nor medicare, so there's no valid argument for them paying those taxes.

Quote: weaselman

but it does indicate, that my infractions are not knowing and purposeful like theirs, that's the difference.

So you did not know it was against the law to use a cell phone while operating a vehicle on a public road in some (many) legislatures. And you haven't done it anymore since?

Quote: weaselman

No, I am not without sin. I simply respect the law.

No, you don't. You laugh at it, as the quotes show. In the phone thread, you asked me if I planned on violating a law (that I saw as useful) strongly implying that I would violate it. You respect a particular law, the one about immigration, but only because you happen to be on its good side.

Quote: weaselman

I have more right to be in the US because I am a US citizen (and because I respect US laws).

citizen /'sit.i.zən/, from "cite" - settlement
So you have more right to be in the US because you are in the US. As for the laws, been over it, you don't respect them.

There is a legal framework built around who got here how that gives you some perks. But you can not use the law being questioned as an argument in defense of that same law, just how you can't use a theorem as proof of itself.

Current Americans are descendants of illegal immigrants. They had no right to get in, got in anyway. Now it's a clubhouse - "if you didn't get in early enough, you're out" - that's it?

Please don't confuse it with "if you don't get out, we'll kick your ass". No one is disputing the ability of this clubhouse's oldfags to kick out newfags. No one is disputing that it is a valid reason not to try and get in, either.
What is in dispute is whether there are deeper reasons, some kind of a moral justification for why no one else can come. Something that justifies high horse attitudes about it. Some reason they shouldn't come if they do accept the risk of having their ass kicked, which is their risk and their problem.

Quote: weaselman

Or you just work for cash, and don't fill any papers at all, like most of the illegals actually do.

Center for Immigration Studies reports that more than half of illegals are "on the books" which is exactly what I suspected.

Quote: FinsRule

Center for Immigration Studies reports that more than half of illegals are "on the books" which is exactly what I suspected.

More that half of the illegals they know about. Not surprising. They are illegals. Get it?

yeah we get it. you think you know more than the experts who study this.
based on nothing more than perception and opinion.
just like most of your other posts, this is devoid of reference or citation.

Quote: P90

They get neither social security nor medicare, so there's no valid argument for them paying those taxes

Bullshit. There would be no valid argument if it was possible for me to get out of paying them by declining medicare coverage and/or social security.
You are required to pay social security and medicare regardless of whether you plan on enjoying benefits. If things continue the way they are now, chances are I won't be getting any social security either, but I still have to pay taxes.

Quote:

So you did not know it was against the law to use a cell phone while operating a vehicle on a public road in some (many) legislatures. And you haven't done it anymore since?

Yes, and yes. I did not know it was illegal in that particular state (city rather), and I have not used a cell phone while driving there since.

Quote:

No, you don't. You laugh at it, as the quotes show.

No, I laugh at the clowns that pass some of the stupid laws.

Quote:

In the phone thread, you asked me if I planned on violating a law (that I saw as useful) strongly implying that I would violate it. You respect a particular law, the one about immigration, but only because you happen to be on its good side.

But I am not on its good side! I'd rather live in Sweden, perhaps in Belgium or Netherlands if it was up to me, maybe, in Canada, UK or Australia. US is actually nowhere near the top of the list of my preferences.

I respect it not because I am on its good side, because it makes sense. Because every country in the world has it, and it makes sense there as well. Because if I illegally crossed the Mexican border and got a job there under a false identity, I would be arrested and prosecuted.

And at some level, because when people you don't know anything about come to your home and want to live with you, I think, you'd want to know if those people are criminals before letting them in. If they use their cell phones while driving, maybe, just maybe, you'd forgive them, but if they had a criminal record, it would, probably, make your decision a bit harder.

I'll ask you again. What is the point you are arguing? Are you saying all borders are obsolete? Would you personally cross a border illegally, and stay in another country illegally if it was beneficial to you financially?
Also, if an illegal alien came to live in your house, would you let them in? After all, it's built on a land you have no moral right to ...

Quote: weaselman

Bullshit. There would be no valid argument if it was possible for me to get out of paying them by declining medicare coverage and/or social security.

You could take the whole package. But you don't want the whole package, because it sucks. You want it pieced out and just this one piece of it for you.

Quote: weaselman

No, I laugh at the clowns that pass some of the stupid laws.

But once it's the law, you don't laugh at it anymore and follow it blindly?

Quote: weaselman

Because if I illegally crossed the Mexican border and got a job there under a false identity, I would be arrested and prosecuted.

And if I took a 12 gauge shotgun and hammered a 20 gauge shell into the barrel before shooting, I would get metal splinters in my face.

We were discussing and my argument referred to the lack of justification for assuming moral superiority in the matter, not practical advice about avoiding detrimental consequences.

Quote: weaselman

And at some level, because when people you don't know anything about come to your home and want to live with you, I think, you'd want to know if those people are criminals before letting them in.

You know it takes a lot more than just a clean criminal record.

Quote: weaselman

I'll ask you again. What is the point you are arguing?

That current US citizens have no valid moral basis to act like they're morally superior to immigrants that didn't get permission. They didn't originally ask for permission, so they don't get a moral justification to demand others to. Force to use against them, yes. But if immigrants can successfully evade that force, it's their risk and their decision, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Quote: weaselman

Also, if an illegal alien came to live in your house, would you let them in?

If a random American you've never seen came to live in your house, would you let them in?
We are in agreement then.

Quote: P90

You could take the whole package. But you don't want the whole package, because it sucks. You want it pieced out and just this one piece of it for you.

What are you talking about?

Quote:

But once it's the law, you don't laugh at it anymore and follow it blindly?

Yes. I won't knowingly commit a criminal act.

Quote:

We were discussing and my argument referred to the lack of justification for assuming moral superiority in the matter, not practical advice about avoiding detrimental consequences.

It's not about consequences. I am just saying that every single country on Earth believes it has a right to enforce its borders.

Quote:

You know it takes a lot more than just a clean criminal record.

Yes. But but we are talking about a bunch of criminals invading our country, Who cares about "a lot more"?

Quote:

That current US citizens have no valid moral basis to act like they're morally superior to immigrants that didn't get permission. They didn't originally ask for permission, so they don't get a moral justification to demand others to. Force to use against them, yes. But if immigrants can successfully evade that force, it's their risk and their decision, and there is nothing wrong with it.


If a random American you've never seen came to live in your house, would you let them in?
We are in agreement then.

No, but I don't claim that I have no valid moral right to my home. You do ...

Quote: weaselman

Yes. But but we are talking about a bunch of criminals invading our country, Who cares about "a lot more"?

Now they're a "bunch of criminals"?
They are not, you are playing with circular logic and labeling words here.
If a law came out making posting on forums a crime, you'd also respond in its defense - "Who cares about a bunch of criminals?"

Quote: weaselman

No, but I don't claim that I have no valid moral right to my home. You do ...

Incorrect. I claim that the distinction between current inhabitants of the United States and the new arrivals, authorized or not, is an arbitrary one based just on when they arrived.

This is not a home. This is two squatters in an office building, chasing the third arrival out because they came first - well, after torching it to remove the previous inhabitants, that is. Can they? Yes. Should they get on a high horse about it and how anyone new is "just a damn criminal" because they declared it a crime? No.

Quote: P90

Now they're a "bunch of criminals"?
They are not, you are playing with circular logic and labeling words here.

What "circular logic" are you referring to? If you commit a criminal act, it makes you a criminal ... Does it not?

Quote:

If a law came out making posting on forums a crime, you'd also respond in its defense - "Who cares about a bunch of criminals?"

I said no such thing. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Quote:

Incorrect. I claim that the distinction between current inhabitants of the United States and the new arrivals, authorized or not, is an arbitrary one based just on when they arrived.

Surely, you are not serious. You realize that it is not the land itself that they are coming here for, it's what its "current inhabitants" have built on it, right?

Quote:

This is not a home. This is two squatters in an office building, chasing the third arrival out because they came first - well, after torching it to remove the previous inhabitants, that is.

Not because they came first. Because they came first, furnished the building, paid for the utilities, air conditioting and the telephone service, built a garage, created a loan, and stuffed the fridge. And now the third one shows up, and claims he has as much right to use all that stuff as they do.
I'll ask again. If someone shows up at your door tomorrow, and says they want to live in your house, are you going to just let them in because you don't think you have "moral right" not to?

Quote: weaselman

What "circular logic" are you referring to? If you commit a criminal act, it makes you a criminal ... Does it not?

Let me recap.
"What's wrong with them coming here?"
"That they're a bunch of criminals."
"What makes them criminals?"
"That I declare the act of coming here a crime."

You're making as much sense as:
"Why shouldn't black kids be allowed to go to white schools?"
"I don't want our kids to study alongside criminals!"
"Why are all black kids criminals?"
"Because it's a crime for them to come to a white school."

Quote: weaselman

Surely, you are not serious. You realize that it is not the land itself that they are coming here for, it's what its "current inhabitants" have built on it, right?

It's both really. But current inhabitants are very much happy to hire him, to rent him property and to sell him food. Which is what they are coming for, to do business. Else they wouldn't need to come.

Quote:

Because they came second, killed the original owner, torched the building, then refurnished it, now with a garage

Fixed. Not important because the rest would still apply, but for historical accuracy.

Quote:

and stuffed the fridge. And now the third one shows up, and claims he has as much right to use all that stuff as they do.

Incorrect analogy. A country is not a family residence, it's a hotel. He doesn't show up expecting free use of the fridge or the facilities, he shows up expecting to rent a room, for which he will pay.

Quote:

I'll ask again. If someone shows up at the reception desk of the hotel you're staying at tomorrow, and says they want to live in one of that hotel's rooms, are you going to just stand there and let them rent it because you don't think you have "moral right" to stop them?

And repaired again.

Yes, I am.

You are trying to make a strawman by using free beer as an analogy for freedom, which it isn't. I will not respond to strawmen, although, for the sake of a constructive debate, I will repair analogies where salvageable and then respond.

Quote: P90

Let me recap.
"What's wrong with them coming here?"
"That they're a bunch of criminals."
"What makes them criminals?"
"That I declare the act of coming here a crime."

No.
1. Coming here without proper procedure is a crime
2. They choose to come here anyway and commit a crime
3. I declare that, regardless of whether the law actually makes sense or not, there is nothing good to come out of
accepting these people now, that we know they are criminals.

I am not against immigration or immigrants, not in the slightest. I am against crime and criminals.

Quote:

You're making as much sense as:
"Why shouldn't black kids be allowed to go to white schools?"
"I don't want our kids to study alongside criminals!"
"Why are all black kids criminals?"
"Because it's a crime for them to come to a white school."

No, not at all. All black kids are not criminals, because they do not actually go to the school (inthe hypothetical world where it is a crime). If there are some that do, knowing that it is a crime, then I would indeed be uncomfortable sending my kids to the same school. Once these particular criminals are arrested and removed, I would have no problem discussing the sensibility or lack thereof, and eventual repeal of the law forbidding black kids in general from going to white schools.

Quote:

It's both really.

No, it really isn't.

Quote:

But current inhabitants are very much happy to hire him, to rent him property and to sell him food.

Are they? You mean all of them, or only some?
I mean, I am the current inhabitant, and I certainly am not happy to do all those things, and I can easily name a few people who are not happy either, and I wasn't even looking. Tells me there must be something off with your statement.

Quote:

Fixed.

You typed some hateful gibberish, and made it look like my quote. I hope, it was a typo.

Quote:

Incorrect analogy. A country is not a family residence, it's a hotel.

No, it is a family residence.

Quote:

He doesn't show up expecting free use of the fridge or the facilities, he shows up expecting to rent a room, for which he will pay.

Does he? He gets free (or almost free) housing, his kids go to state colleges for free (or almost free), he gets free health care, he uses roads, utilities, infrastructure, transportation. All that stuff is heavily subsidized by the government, even if he does end up having to pay a little bit, it is nowhere near the real cost.

Quote:

And repaired again.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. This is unbecoming.
If you want to argue with an imaginary opponent, who says things that you like him to say, just say so.

Well, illegal immigrants are not going away because they do the work we don't want to do any more. Cut lawns, wash dishes, cleaning toilets, etc. We're just too busy on our smartphone, trying to stay connected in hopes of making more money, no time for laboring, doing dull repetitive boring things. We have a LIFE ya know. ;o)

Quote: weaselman

1. Coming here without proper procedure is a crime
2. They choose to come here anyway and commit a crime
3. I declare that, regardless of whether the law actually makes sense or not, there is nothing good to come out of
accepting these people now, that we know they are criminals.

Yes. And you use that as an argument for:
4. Coming here without proper procedure should therefore be a crime
Completing the circle.

Quote: weaselman

No, not at all. All black kids are not criminals, because they do not actually go to the school (inthe hypothetical world where it is a crime).

Yes... hypothetical.

Quote: weaselman

If there are some that do, knowing that it is a crime, then I would indeed be uncomfortable sending my kids to the same school. Once these particular criminals are arrested and removed, I would have no problem discussing the sensibility or lack thereof, and eventual repeal of the law forbidding black kids in general from going to white schools.

Nice, this explains your position.
If only we had more noble men like you in the "hypothetical" United States from its formation till WWII.

Quote: weaselman

Are they? You mean all of them, or only some?

Some. A lot, numerically, enough for their business.

And for most of the rest the largest barrier is just the illegal status of these immigrants. Make it reasonably easy to cross the border legally and that barrier will go away.

Quote: weaselman

You typed some hateful gibberish, and made it look like my quote. I hope, it was a typo.

The quote block didn't say "weaselman", unlike the rest of them, and "fixed" indicated that the quote has been edited.
Hateful? No, that's how it went down, the original owner was killed first, only then the building refurnished.

Quote: weaselman

No, it is a family residence.

Nice, I'll come visit you tomorrow, please keep the fridge full. I might stay for a few months, that's no problem, we're family, right?

Quote: weaselman

Does he? He gets free (or almost free) housing,

Where can I get mine?

Quote: weaselman

his kids go to state colleges for free (or almost free),

Damn, and I had to pay.

Quote: weaselman

he gets free health care

You mean ER or is there some special free care for illegals promo?

Quote: weaselman

he uses roads, utilities, infrastructure, transportation.

For which he pays. Roads in gas taxes, tolls, possibly not in full. For using utilities, infrastructure, transportation in full.

Quote: weaselman

All that stuff is heavily subsidized by the government, even if he does end up having to pay a little bit, it is nowhere near the real cost.

Are you certain? Because while he pays less, his consumption of these services is also much lower. People who don't have a car don't use roads. Only emergency healthcare, and only because medics don't have the time to check all the insurance forms when someone's bleeding out.

As for his kids, if born in US, they become US citizens, joining all the other descendants of illegal immigrants and occasionally slaves.

Quote: weaselman

If you want to argue with an imaginary opponent, who says things that you like him to say, just say so.

Just use correct analogies then.
A country is run like a hotel, not like a family home. You have to pay to get a room, you have to pay for your food, pay for everything. The rates vary and there are some common services that don't depend on your room rate.

Quote: 98Clubs

Well, illegal immigrants are not going away because they do the work we don't want to do any more. Cut lawns, wash dishes, cleaning toilets, etc. We're just too busy on our smartphone, trying to stay connected in hopes of making more money, no time for laboring, doing dull repetitive boring things. We have a LIFE ya know. ;o)

That is all well and fine but, by operating outside of the law in many cases, they come here and avoid such trivial things as the minimum wage, benefits, etc. They often work outside the tax code for the majority of their income. Their employers are violating the law because they don't have to pay a fair wage for the work being done. They become almost slaves because they don't know the language and they can't report any crimes--since they could get in trouble if their status was discovered. Too many of them drive without licenses or insurance.

Yeah, I know...we could make them all legal. As long as strict conditions are put in place to govern illegal entry into this country (yes, most came as immigrants and we will always need more, but we do have laws here governing immigration...just like other countries do), it could eventually change the dynamics of how people enter the country. It needs to be done as opposed to talked about--the longer we let it go, the longer it festers and the more entrenched the folks on both sides of the issue become in their position.

If they were actually competing for jobs on a level playing field and were properly documented (just like most of us are--we pay taxes, have a valid license, and are full participants in society), then business owners could not get away with paying too low of wages and holding them in bondage. If you don't want to play by the laws of our land, then please feel free to stay in your land. We can lament all day what was done to people a hundred years ago but we do try to do things right in the US based on experience and our Constitution.

Quote: RonC

Yeah, I know...we could make them all legal. As long as strict conditions are put in place to govern illegal entry into this country (yes, most came as immigrants and we will always need more, but we do have laws here governing immigration...just like other countries do), it could eventually change the dynamics of how people enter the country.

The problem is that America already has laws in place to govern illegal immigration. The way to immigrate legally is long, expensive, time-consuming and difficult. That's why so many people immigrate illegally.

It's like everything else. If you make obtaining labor difficult and expensive legally, then people will obtain it illegally.

BTW this helps show that Republicans only pay lip service to the idea of free markets. When their beliefs or prejudices are threatened, they don't hesitate to use government force to chain the markets down.

Quote: Nareed

The problem is that America already has laws in place to govern illegal

I'd be fine with enforcing existing laws as they stand...I was trying to leave an opening for not kicking everyone out that is now here illegally in exchange for making it harder to stay illegally later.

Quote: Nareed

The way to immigrate legally is long, expensive, time-consuming and difficult. That's why so many people immigrate illegally.

It's like everything else. If you make obtaining labor difficult and expensive legally, then people will obtain it illegally.

That nice new car you have will take me way too long to obtain by working hard and saving for it...so I will just steal it!!

Quote: Nareed

BTW this helps show that Republicans only pay lip service to the idea of free markets. When their beliefs or prejudices are threatened, they don't hesitate to use government force to chain the markets down.

Both parties do some of this--protecting their own interests even when doing it goes against what they say they stand for--are you trying to imply that only Republicans do ti? If so, it is not worth discussing with you. The minute we admit that our party of choice has flaws and we try to improve on them, then we can have a real discussion. Until that point, we're just spouting the given talking points.

For example, the people who think President Obama (you can substitute the last name and use Bush, too) has done everything 100% right without fault are never going to be part of any realistic discussion. The ones who feel he has made mistakes and fallen short BUT that he should be given a second chance are the ones that you can have a good conversation with.

Quote: RonC

That nice new car you have will take me way too long to obtain by working hard and saving for it...so I will just steal it!!

No. But if you had to wait for years for a permit, undergo endless checks, have a relative with that make of car, pay fees for a permit, pay a lawyer to help with the paperwork, etc, you'd buy it on the black market instead.

Quote: Nareed

No. But if you had to wait for years for a permit, undergo endless checks, have a relative with that make of car, pay fees for a permit, pay a lawyer to help with the paperwork, etc, you'd buy it on the black market instead.

No, I wouldn't. I try to stay within the laws of the land I am in--including the other countries I have visited legally.

Quote: P90

Yes. And you use that as an argument for:
4. Coming here without proper procedure should therefore be a crime
Completing the circle.

Ah, no. Coming here without proper procedure is a crime, because that's what the law says. My argument is that those, who have committed the crime need to be arrested and deported.
Then the discussion could continue on whether or not such behavior should be considered a crime in the future, like in every country in the world, or weather we should just open up our borders and let anyone in.

Quote:

Nice, I bet we would have a much better country now if the blacks and the women just knew their place and waited patiently for wealthy white males to discuss the sensibility of granting them white rights.

Who said anything about "waiting patiently"? We do (with some reservations) have a democratic country. There are ways to create changes you want by lawful methods.
Of course, a revolution is always faster, but personally I am not a fan of it.

Quote:

Some. A lot, numerically, enough for their business.

Ah. Well, some citizens also benefit from tax evasion, wire fraud, and great many other crimes. Is your argument, that the laws should all be obsolete because some people benefit from it when they are violated and do not mind?

Quote:

And for most of the rest the largest barrier is just the illegal status of these immigrants. Make it reasonably easy to cross the border legally and that barrier will go away.

Fine. Make it reasonably easy if that makes economic sense. I don't mind at all. But first, get rid of the criminals that are already here.

Quote:

The quote block didn't say "weaselman", unlike the rest.

Yeah ... nice nuance. It did say "quote" though ...

Quote:

But hateful? No, that's how it went down, the original owner was killed first, only then the building refurnished.

I don't know ... I haven't really read it. Sorry.

Quote:

Nice, I'll come visit you tomorrow, please keep the fridge full. I might stay for a few months, that's no problem, we're family, right?

Why? My family doesn't normally come to visit me uninvited. And when they are invited, they don't stay in my bedroom, and don't raid my fridge. And even if something unexpected happens (like a fire), and they have no place to live or something, I will help, but not necessarily by inviting them into my house. If you want, there is homeless shelter within a few miles, I can help you get a bed there if you want.

Quote:

Where can I get mine?

You can't, that's the whole point.

Quote:

Damn, and I had to pay.

Exactly!

Quote:

You mean ER or is there some special free care for illegals promo?

Yes, there are free care clinics all over the place. Welcome to the USA.
They don't ask about your legal status. You need to fill in an application, and there is a question about SSN, but you are welcome to leave it blank if you'd rather keep it private.
Or put somebody else's number in it. It does not matter, nobody bothers to check it even when you are getting employed, forget about overloaded and overworked fee care staff. And even f they did check ... they can't refuse to treat you, and they can't call the police. They could report you to ICE, but ... those folks usually just ignore such reports.

Quote:

For which he pays. Roads in gas taxes, tolls, possibly not in full. For using utilities, infrastructure, transportation in full.

Nope. Not in full for any of it. So "pays" is a moot point.
Since he is not paying in full, that means, I have to pick up the tab. That gives me the "moral right" to not want him to be here.

Quote:

Are you certain? Because while he pays less, his consumption of these services is also much lower. People who don't have a car don't use roads.

Huh? Don't they walk? Ride bikes? Don't they shop for goods delivered by trucks?
In any event, this is not a quantitative question, so whether it is lower or not is immaterial. He uses the services, the infrastructure, the economy of this country, which was built by its citizens for their own use. Just like you are using your house built on the land you own "illegally".
He does not have any more right, moral or otherwise, to just drop in and start using all that stuff, then he does to crash in your house for a month. Even, if he offers you a rent to cover a art of the expenses.

Quote:

Just use correct analogies then.

I am using correct analogies. It is your not liking them that is incorrect.

Quote:

A country is run like a hotel, not like a family home. You have to pay to get a room, you have to pay for your food, pay for everything. The rates vary and there are some common services that don't depend on your room rate.

No. It is a lot more like a family home than a hotel. You have to chip in what you can for the common family expenses, yes. If you are not making a lot, the rest of the family helps. This is nothing like a hotel. But even if it was ... Any normal hotel does actually have a "moral right" to refuse services to anyone, doesn't?

Quote: RonC

That nice new car you have will take me way too long to obtain by working hard and saving for it...so I will just steal it!!

No.

"That nice new programming suite they have will take me way too long to obtain by saving up user donations... so I will just download it!!"
Oh wait. That isn't stealing. May be illegal, but isn't stealing, because it doesn't take value away from anyone.

Immigrants add value. Fundamental economics. They fill in the segments of the labor market that the locals don't want to, and proceed to create additional value.
Just like the programmer in the example above, they fail to transfer part of this value to the software developer or to the government. But that is not a negative, so the total is still positive. That the software maker fails to cover low-cost markets and the government fails to cover the bottom 99% of the immigrant market is, at least in part, their fault and their loss.

Quote: RonC

The ones who feel he has made mistakes and fallen short BUT that he should be given a second chance are the ones that you can have a good conversation with.

He shouldn't, since he purposely wasted the first, and doesn't seem to think he has mistakes to correct. Anyway, off the topic.

Quote: P90

He shouldn't, since he purposely wasted the first, and doesn't seem to think he has mistakes to correct. Anyway, off the topic.

My point was that people who are open to discussion are worth discussing things with; people who are so set in their thoughts that they won't consider the other side of the argument will just waste your time.

Quote: RonC

My point was that people who are open to discussion are worth discussing things with; people who are so set in their thoughts that they won't consider the other side of the argument will just waste your time.

So you're advising us not to discuss things with you?

Quote: P90

No.

"That nice new programming suite they have will take me way too long to obtain by saving up user donations... so I will just download it!!"
Oh wait. That isn't stealing. May be illegal, but isn't stealing, because it doesn't take value away from anyone.

I don't steal software. I buy it. Using software that you don't hold the proper license for is stealing. I like lots of things; I don't just take them because I like them.

Quote: P90

Immigrants add value. Fundamental economics. They fill in the segments of the labor market that the locals don't want to, and proceed to create additional value.
Just like the programmer in the example above, they fail to transfer part of this value to the software developer or to the government. But that is not a negative, so the total is still positive. That the software maker fails to cover low-cost markets and the government fails to cover the bottom 99% of the immigrant market is, at least in part, their fault and their loss.

Immigrants do add value. We will always need them and we should always allow them to enter the country legally.

The illegal aliens have stolen a potential opportunity for legal immigrants by taking up "jobs no one wants". If they were not filling those jobs, employers would either have to raise wages/benefits to attract current residents (citizen or immigrant) OR push the government to let in more legal immigrants.

Employers of illegal aliens are not competing on a level playing field and should be held accountable for their actions.

My issue is that we are going after the wrong people. It's a lot easier to go after the businesses for paying people below minimum wage. But the reason we don't do that is that the prices of our food and other goods would go up.

I don't think people understand that the government actually does not want to stop illegals from working here.

Quote: Nareed

So you're advising us not to discuss things with you?

Really?

Quote: FinsRule

My issue is that we are going after the wrong people. It's a lot easier to go after the businesses for paying people below minimum wage. But the reason we don't do that is that the prices of our food and other goods would go up.

I really don't want anyone working for less than minimum wage. I'll pay a little more for the things I need, thank you. I would guess tax revenue would go up, too, once everyone's income is properly reported and taxed.

Quote: FinsRule

I don't think people understand that the government actually does not want to stop illegals from working here.

Some in government don't want to stop them from working here. I think some also do want to stop them from working here.

Quote: FinsRule

My issue is that we are going after the wrong people. It's a lot easier to go after the businesses for paying people below minimum wage. But the reason we don't do that is that the prices of our food and other goods would go up.

I don't think people understand that the government actually does not want to stop illegals from working here.

I really don't think the average person is that stupid. This has been an issue going on for generations. Believe me, we have enough law enforcement agencies in this country to tackle the problem if they really wanted it solved. Now we can quibble about the reasons the government doesn't want illegals to be moved on whether it's because 2/3 of them vote for one party or whether it's an issue of keeping products cheap (since when has the government tried to keep anything cheap) or whether it is a moral issue or some other reason. But I don't think the average person is stupid enough to believe if government wanted the problem solved, that it would be this big of a problem today.

Some people actually believe that if you can get here, you
'deserve' to live in America. Thats like saying if you live in
a dive fleabag hotel in NYC, and can get to the Plaze Hotel,
you deserve to live there at the same price. Nothing in life
works that way.

Quote: weaselman

Ah, no. Coming here without proper procedure is a crime, because that's what the law says.

But the debate is, at least in part, about whether it should be a crime, or treated as such.

Quote: weaselman

Who said anything about "waiting patiently"? We do (with some reservations) have a democratic country. There are ways to create changes you want by lawful methods.
Of course, a revolution is always faster, but personally I am not a fan of it.

Yeah, if we had you in charge, we'd probably still be answering to the Queen and paying taxes to Great Britain.

Quote: weaselman

Ah. Well, some citizens also benefit from tax evasion, wire fraud, and great many other crimes.

People who don't perpetrate those crimes? Tell me how.
And I don't mean families. I mean the other party to these crimes. Because the other parties to illegal immigrant's labor benefit from it.

Quote: weaselman

I don't know ... I haven't really read it. Sorry.

Too bad. When I went to school, we had to read about it.

Quote: weaselman

Why? My family doesn't normally come to visit me uninvited. And when they are invited, they don't stay in my bedroom, and don't raid my fridge. And even if something unexpected happen (like a fire), and they have no place to live or something, I will help, but not necessarily by inviting them into my house. If you want, there is homeless shelter within a few miles, I can help you get a bed there if you want.

So you treat your family like strangers, and you'd throw them out into a homeless shelter?

Nice. Explanatory.

Quote: weaselman

You can't, that's the whole point.
Exactly!

Then how can they? Explain to me. Maybe I'll become an illegal immigrant too. Well, pretend to be one, I mean how can they prove I'm not. You make it sound so cool.

Quote: weaselman

And even if they did check ... they can't refuse to treat you, and they can't call the police.

So, you and me can use it too.

Quote: weaselman

Nope. Not in full for any of it. So "pays" is a moot point.
Since he is not paying in full, that means, I have to pick up the tab.

I take it that you're in the second to top tax bracket.
For the sake of the argument, imagine you were in the bottom one.
Minimum wage. These people don't pay the income tax, and they pay very little in other taxes. This means that they don't pay in full for the services they're getting - and you and me have to pick up the tab!

Hey man, I want them out of here. I don't care where they came from, if ya white trash can't pay, get the hell out! We should do it, right?
The only difference is that illegals actually get far less service for the far lower amount of taxes they're paying.

Quote: weaselman

Huh? Don't they walk? Ride bikes? Don't they shop for goods delivered by trucks?

The benefit of public roads in this instance goes to the shop operator - he is the one to profit.
Walking does not, unlike driving, rapidly damage roads, requiring repairs, it doesn't create jams (not in almost all of US), so it's non-destructive, non-exclusive use of a public resource.

Quote: weaselman

In any event, this is not a quantitative question, so whether it is lower or not is immaterial. He uses the services, the infrastructure, the economy of this country, which was built by its citizens for their own use.

He adds to the services, the infrastructure, and the economy of this country.

And as for "their own use"... What if I place a sign next to a road that says "Left turn downhill 140 degrees radius 30 yds in 200 yds", for my own use, and one day, driving on that road, you happen to notice that sign and not crash into the barrier only because of it?
Shouldn't I be outraged that you used a sign, built by me for my own use, for your personal benefit, maybe demand you to compensate me for the damages that sign saved you?


What's built is built. If it's built on public land with no access control, it's there for everyone to use. Unless someone is destroying it or otherwise denying you its use, that's just how it is.

Quote: weaselman

It is a lot more like a family home than a hotel.

The way you deem fit to treat your family, maybe. Other than that, it's anything but. My family doesn't pay interest if I lend them money, we don't pay each other for every meal, we don't lock one of us up in the closet if he breaks the rules, and we don't need an invitation to visit one another.

Quote: weaselman

But even if it was ... Any normal hotel does actually have a "moral right" to refuse services to anyone, doesn't?

Technically not, try refusing a negro because he's a nigger.

But one important distinction. I have a moral right to play blackjack - but I don't have a moral justification to play blackjack.
I don't dispute that there should indeed be some control over the borders. As a matter of practicality, as a self-serving measure.
Some people are trying to elevate it to a moral stance, that we should stand up and deny services from unauthorized immigrants, and that it's the right thing to do. Not just a self-serving thing you are allowed to do, but some kind of a moral duty.

And it isn't. This isn't some land our ancestors have been working since the dawn of time, this is a mish-mash of illegal arrivals that at one point decided to shut the door in the face or any new kids.
Which is what my earlier post in the thread was about, although later I have proceeded to push the point further. As a matter of practicality, perhaps current US inhabitants are within their right to refuse entrance to others - but they certainly aren't in a position to act superior about it.

So if I had to choose between hiring a legal citizen and an illegal immigrant - I'd choose the one that gives me better net value after all costs, benefits and risks have been quantified. ("All risks" includes any you might mention). I don't see anything morally worse or better about either choice.

Quote: EvenBob

Some people actually believe that if you can get here, you 'deserve' to live in America.

Some people believe that living in America is something to be 'deserved' or 'not deserved' .

That is the notion I disagree with.
And even if one agrees with it, far too many current citizens fall on the undeserving side.

Quote: Gabes22

I really don't think the average person is that stupid. This has been an issue going on for generations. Believe me, we have enough law enforcement agencies in this country to tackle the problem if they really wanted it solved. Now we can quibble about the reasons the government doesn't want illegals to be moved on whether it's because 2/3 of them vote for one party or whether it's an issue of keeping products cheap (since when has the government tried to keep anything cheap) or whether it is a moral issue or some other reason. But I don't think the average person is stupid enough to believe if government wanted the problem solved, that it would be this big of a problem today.

Then why is the anger being directed to the illegals? They're doing what the government wants them to do. Come into the country illegally and work for cheap. People just need to focus their anger, that's all.

Quote: P90

But the debate is, at least in part, about whether it should be a crime, or treated as such.

Yes. And my position s that those, who have committed a crime already, should be treated as criminals,

Quote:

Yeah, if we had you in charge, we'd probably still be answering to the Queen and paying taxes to Great Britain.

I don't think so. There was never a revolution in Canada or Australia, and they turned out to be OK.
The experience of wold countries shows that revolutions and disregard to laws usually lead to disaster. US is but one exception. I would not be very hopeful that t can be repeated.

Quote:

People who don't perpetrate those crimes? Tell me how.

Well, if a business avoids paying taxes, the consumers can enjoy lower prices. If somebody sells stolen goods on eBay, his customers realize great savings. If you start a ponzi scheme, lots of people would be able to profit from it besides you ...

Quote:

So you treat your family like strangers, and you'd throw them out into a homeless shelter?

No, I don't. I don't invite strangers to my home. And I don't care about them at all.

Quote:

Then how can they? Explain to me. Maybe I'll become an illegal immigrant too. Well, pretend to be one, I mean how can they prove I'm not. You make it sound so cool.

What about it seems so complicated to you? Get rid of all your assets (or, better yet', hide them in another country), work for cash, and claim no income.

Quote:

So, you and me can use it too.

Sure. I can use my fridge too. Doesn't mean everybody else should be able to.

Quote:

I take it that you're in the second to top tax bracket.
For the sake of the argument, imagine you were in the bottom one.
Minimum wage. These people don't pay the income tax, and they pay very little in other taxes. This means that they don't pay in full for the services they're getting - and you and me have to pick up the tab!

Yes. Exactly. Now you get it?

Quote:

Hey man, I want them out of here. I don't care where they came from, if ya white trash can't pay, get the hell out! We should do it, right?
The only difference is that illegals actually get far less service for the far lower amount of taxes they're paying.

No. The difference is that they are illegal. They have no right to be here, and they have no claim for my money.
It does not matter if they get less service. If they get any at all, that is already too much.

Quote:

The benefit of public roads in this instance goes to the shop operator - he is the one to profit.

Yeah ... can you imagine living in a place with no public roads for the shop operator to use? Try imagining it, and then tell me with a straight face that you see no benefit in having public roads unless you drive a car.

Quote:

He adds to the services, the infrastructure, and the economy of this country.

So, it would be OK with you then, if I decide to live in your house, and to share your meals, as long as I give you twenty bucks a week, and "add to your infrastructure", would it not?

Quote:

What's built is built. If it's built on public land with no access control, it's there for everyone to use. Unless someone is destroying it or otherwise denying you its use, that's just how it is.

"Public" in the "public land" means "public of the country", that owns the land. It is there to be used by the public of that country, not by everyone.
The land is owned by the country, in the same way you own the land on which your house is built. If what's built on US public land is for everyone in the world to use, then everything, built, on your land is too, just as well.

Quote:

The way you deem fit to treat your family, maybe. Other than that, it's anything but. My family doesn't pay interest if I lend them money, we don't pay each other for every meal, we don't lock one of us up in the closet if he breaks the rules, and we don't need an invitation to visit one another.

So, you just choose the direct labor and goods exchange instead of a monetary system. Good for you, but it hardly means much in the context of this discussion.

Quote:

Technically not, try refusing a negro because he's a nigger.

You actually can do that. Unless, you are owned by the government, or want to get contracts from them.
And anyway, even if you could not,it's just a law anyway, which, according to you, doesn't really need to be obeyed, unless you like it.

Quote:

But one important distinction. I have a moral right to play blackjack - but I don't have a moral justification to play blackjack.

But if casino wants you off their property, and you won't leave, they do have a moral justification to throw you out.

Quote:

This isn't some land our ancestors have been working since the dawn of time,

For the hundredth time, this is not about the land.

Quote: P90

Some people believe that living in America is something to be 'deserved' or 'not deserved' .

That is the notion I disagree with.

Exactly. Do I deserve to live in your house? Do you?
I think "deserve" in this context is usually used to mean "have right to".

Quote: P90

Some people believe that living in America is something to be 'deserved' or 'not deserved' .

That is the notion I disagree with.

Exactly. Do I deserve to live in your house? Do you?
I think "deserve" in this context is usually used to mean "have right to".

Quote: weaselman

No, I don't. I don't invite strangers to my home. And I don't care about them at all.

Figures.

Quote: weaselman

What about it seems so complicated to you? Get rid of all your assets (or, better yet', hide them in another country), work for cash, and claim no income.

And I'll get free college education? Tell me more.

Quote: weaselman

Yeah ... can you imagine living in a place with no public roads for the shop operator to use? Try imagining it, and then tell me with a straight face that you see no benefit in having public roads unless you drive a car.

Misrepresentation.

You haven't answered the question about my road sign yet. To recap, I put a sign near a road, for my own use, warning me about a dangerous turn, and one day that sign saves you a crash.
Do you now owe me money for the benefit you received from that sign? Should I be angry with you for receiving benefit from a thing that I built, without pitching in for the expenses?

Quote: weaselman

So, it would be OK with you then, if I decide to live in your house, and to share your meals, as long as I give you twenty bucks a week, and "add to your infrastructure", would it not?

In my hotel, and to get your means in my hotel's restaurant. Then yes.

You are firmly intent on misrepresenting the issue via strawmen analogies. Specifically you present destructive or exclusive use of a resource as an analogy for non-destructive, non-exclusive use.

My house has limited capacity and any use of that capacity by you will directly subtract from my utility (thus representing exclusive use). My meals have limited size and any use of them by you is destructive. In contrast, a country, or specifically US, has a very large unused capacity (supporting at most 20% of the population it can), making added habitation a non-exclusive use. This is similar to a hotel full of empty rooms (and you'll be paying for yours), not to a private residence.
With the meals your analogy is outright false, because the immigrants don't in any way take them from you, they get their own.

Quote: weaselman

So, you just choose the direct labor and goods exchange instead of a monetary system.

No. There is no exchange, I don't seek reciprocity from family members, what I can reasonably spare is free for their use, especially in time of need, and vice versa. The thought of sending a family member whose home burned down to a homeless shelter wouldn't even cross my mind as long as I'm able to provide them with a place to live. At my home, or rented, or otherwise.

And it isn't just me, it's the normal way for people to treat their family. You are clearly very far on the egoist end of the scale.

Quote: weaselman

But if casino wants you off their property, and you won't leave, they do have a moral justification to throw you out.

No. A right yes, a justification no. When a casino is throwing out a card counter, they are just looking out for their own interest, not enforcing morality (I'm not sure if that terms actually has a meaning for you, though). They have a legal right to do so in Nevada, don't have in New Jersey, don't have most anywhere in Europe.

Quote: P90

And I'll get free college education? Tell me more.

There is no "more". Just take your SATs, fill in the application, then, when you get accepted show up in financial aid office, and tell them you have no money.

Quote:

You haven't answered the question about my road sign yet. To recap, I put a sign near a road, for my own use, warning me about a dangerous turn, and one day that sign saves you a crash.
Do you now owe me money for the benefit you received from that sign? Should I be angry with you for receiving benefit from a thing that I built, without pitching in for the expenses?

If you own the road, and make it clear that it is yours, and I am not welcome to use it unless I a pay, yes, I might owe you the money for using it.

Quote:

In my hotel, and to get your means in my hotel's restaurant.

As long as you live in a hotel, and call it a home, and also participate in its upkeep and maintenance, and have the power to hire and fire its management, I can agree with your correction, although I still think that the setup is much closer to a family residence then a hotel.
Remember though, that I have no intention to pay in full for the services. I am going to just chip in a little, and expect you to pay the rest.

Quote:

Then yes.

Great! Can you PM me the address?

Quote:

My house has limited capacity

Oh, I see. And your country, its education system, its health care, infrastructure, housing, communications, utilities, transportation, police force, job market ... they all have unlimited capacity in your Universe. Now, I understand where you come from.

Quote:

No. There is no exchange, I don't seek reciprocity from family members,

Maybe you don't seek it, but you do expect it. If you are busting your butt on three jobs trying to put bread on the table, and your three brothers in law sit on the couch in the living room watching TV and eating chips with salsa all day long, maybe, you can stand it for a while, but after a few days, I bet, you'll get pretty pissed.

Quote:

what I can reasonably spare is free for their use, especially in time of need, and vice versa.

Is it free for my use though? No?
Well, same principle here. No difference.

Quote:

The thought of sending a family member whose home burned down to a homeless shelter wouldn't even cross my mind as long as I'm able to provide them with a place to live. At my home, or rented, or otherwise.

Homeless shelter in the country analogy to a family is an equivalent of an apartment you would rent for your uncle if his house burns down.
I am about 94.3% sure you are perfectly able to understand analogies, so your desperate insistence on taking everything literally seems to suggest that you are out of valid arguments to the discussion.

Quote:

No. A right yes, a justification no.

Huh? If a stranger is on your property, and won't leave despite your asking him nicely, you are not justified in making him go away? Really? Which universe?

Quote: weaselman

There is no "more". Just take your SATs, fill in the application, then, when you get accepted show up in financial aid office, and tell them you have no money.

I must have missed something, because this means student loans should be a thing of the past.

Quote: weaselman

If you own the road, and make it clear that it is yours, and I am not welcome to use it unless I a pay, yes, I might owe you the money for using it.

I just own the sign on the road (and had the right to place it there). But you extract benefit from it. So, do you owe me that benefit? Were you wrong in extracting it without paying me in advance?

Quote: weaselman

As long as you live in a hotel, and call it a home, and also participate in its upkeep and maintenance, and have the power to hire and fire its management, I can agree with your correction.

You don't participate in its upkeep and maintenance, beyond your own room.
You don't have the power to hire and fire its management. You only can vote for one of the two administrators that are offered to you by the board of directors. The white one or the black one.

Quote: weaselman

Remember though, that I have no intention to pay in full for the services. I am going to just chip in a little, and expect you to pay the rest.

Incorrect. While paying less in taxes, illegals consume much less in services.
The ones who are in the wrong here are underclass citizens - they often don't have an income at all, and receive not just full services that taxpayers are entitled to, but even monetary aid, and the only taxes they pay are part of that aid. In other words, they contribute nothing in taxes, while receiving more in return.

If we should kick someone out, it's them, not unauthorized immigrants who do have a job and do add value.

Quote: weaselman

And your country, its education system, its health care,

Education isn't open to illegals. Healthcare only to very limited extent.

Quote: weaselman

infrastructure, communications,

Yes. These two are constantly being expanded and they chip in their share - we don't give them out free cell phones.

Quote: weaselman

job market ... they all have unlimited capacity in your Universe.

Even better: the job market is not a resource, it's a consumer of a resource. Employees are a resource. Immigrants provide an addition to this resource.

Quote: weaselman

Maybe you don't seek it, but you do expect it.

No, I don't. I expect goodwill and good faith - not reciprocity. We are unlike in this regard, I don't treat family as just another resource to be exploited.

Quote: weaselman

If you are busting your butt on three jobs trying to put bread on the table, and your three brothers in law sit on the couch in the living room watching TV

That's lack of a good faith effort.
But if they are working jobs providing considerably less than the resources they consume, I have no problem assisting for as long as needed, if I have the spare capacity. Or if they are unable to work because their papers burned down with that house, as in your original scenario, and they are busy sorting out their legal situation.

Quote: weaselman

Is it free for my use though? No?

Of course not. You're not family. You're a stranger, just like about everyone else in the country.
Unlike you, I do care about strangers, but they don't get access to my resources that family does.

Quote: weaselman

Homeless shelter in the country analogy to a family is an equivalent of an apartment you would rent for your uncle if his house burns down.

You did not use a homeless shelter in a country analogy. You said you would send your actual family to an actual homeless shelter. Not hypothetical country-scale analogy to a family (I'm not even sure what you mean by that).
You are free to retract if that is not the case, of course.

Quote: weaselman

If a stranger is on your property, and won't leave despite your asking him nicely, you are not justified in making him go away?

I have a right to make him go away, but I don't have an obligation to make him go away.

If you scroll up a few pages, the comment I objected to was about how we should (i.e. have an obligation or a moral incentive to) intentionally impede unauthorized immigrants in their life here. Do we have a right to? In the sense of a realpolitik right to look after our own, yes. Should we be proud about exercising it? No.

Quote: P90

I must have missed something, because this means student loans should be a thing of the past.

No, they are for students whose parents (or the students themselves) have (unhidden) assets and (legal) income. Everybody else does not need them.

Quote:

I just own the sign on the road (and had the right to place it there). But you extract benefit from it. So, do you owe me that benefit? Were you wrong in extracting it without paying me in advance?

I am not sure how can you have the right to put a sign on somebody else's road, and attempt to make profit from it.
But, provided, that you somehow get it done, and there is a clear indication given to me ahead of time, that I am not supposed to look at your private sign unless I intend to pay for it, and you can prove that I did in fact look ... In that case, yes, I would owe you the money for using your sign.

Quote:

You don't participate in its upkeep and maintenance, beyond your own room.

Exactly. That's why I said, that the family analogy is much closer to the reality.

Quote:

You don't have the power to hire and fire its management. You only can vote for one of the two administrators that are offered to you by the board of directors. The white one or the black one.

No. You are the board of directors.

Quote:

Incorrect. While paying less in taxes, illegals consume much less in services.

Less then who?
Fine, I'll consume less in services too. All I need is a decent room, and three hot meals a day. I'll pay you $20 per week for that.

Quote:

The ones who are in the wrong here are underclass citizens - they often don't have an income at all,

Yes, but those are citizens. Those are analogous to your brothers in law who sit on the couch while you are working three jobs. Or, maybe, they really are sick, and cannot work. In any event, it is a different, family matter.
It is an entirely different story when somebody else just walks in from the street, and, pointing to your lazy brothers in law demands to be treated the same. Would you?

Quote:

Education isn't open to illegals.

Yes, it is.

Quote:

Healthcare only to very limited extent.

No, it isn't.

Quote:

Yes. These two are constantly being expanded and they chip in their share - we don't give them out free cell phones.

No, we don't (yet). But they still benefit from living in a place with highly developed communications system. Just like they benefit from the roads even if they don't drive on them themselves.

Quote:

Even better: the job market is not a resource,

Call in a pink pony if you want, it does not change the fact that there is a limited number of jobs, and generally a higher number of people looking for them.

Quote:

Quote: weaselman

Maybe you don't seek it, but you do expect it.

No, I don't. I expect goodwill and good faith - not reciprocity.

... or a pink pony ... whatever.
You expect that every member of the family contributes what they can to its well being. You are willing to support those, who cannot support themselves, and you expect, that if some day you are unable to support yourself, then others will support you. You do not extend the same expectations and offer the same considerations to the outsiders though. That's exactly how families and countries work.

Quote:

Quote: weaselman

Is it free for my use though? No?

Of course not. You're not family.You're a stranger, just like about everyone else in the country.

So what? Your house is built on an illegal land. You don't have any more right to be there then I do. Just because you were there first, does not mean you get to set up the rules who is family and who is stranger. I want to be your family too, and I am planning to manifest this desire by simply walking into your house and picking a bedroom. Don't worry, I won't choose the largest one, and I will leave twenty bucks on the table, because I am going to pay you for the use of your house. Not a lot, but I'll be paying more than your kids do, and use even less services then them.

Quote:

You said you would send your actual family to an actual homeless shelter.

No, I did not. I said that a country is analogous to a family. You responded that if so, you are going to move in with me. I responded that if you want, I can arrange a bed in the shelter for you. Unless you think now that you are my actual family, I have never mentioned anything about my actual family and the shelter in the same sentence.

Quote:

I have a right to make him go away, but I don't have an obligation to make him go away.

Who was talking about obligations? Are you changing the topic now?

Quote:

If you scroll up a few pages, the comment I objected to was about how we should (i.e. have an obligation or a moral incentive to) intentionally impede unauthorized immigrants in their life here. Do we have a right to? In the sense of a realpolitik right to look after our own, yes. Should we be proud about exercising it? No.

No. You said we did not have a (moral) right to ask stangers to leave, because they have as much right to be here as us. I objected to that. That was the topic of the discussion. Now, it seems that you are saying we do have the right, so, we are in agreement.

As for the obligation ... The police, ICE and border patrol have obligation to enforce the law. This should be enough ... if only they actually fulfilled it ...

Now should we be proud about enforcing the laws? Well ... that's a tough one. Should you be proud about throwing me out of your house when I show up to live there? I would if I were you. I might have spoken too fast, when I said I did not care at all about strangers, but my loyalty is with family first and foremost. If a stranger shows up in my house and threatens well being of my family, damn right, I am going to throw him out, and be damn proud of it!