<p>"The legal poor have to pay income tax."</p>
<p>We're splitting hairs over who is poor. The IRS said that 32.58% of those Americans who filed income tax returns did not owe any federal income tax at all for 2005. I sure hope this is the poorest 32.58%, and not the richest! Yes, I know, it's a mixture.</p>
<p>"But you can easily account for the shortages zoosermom talks about "</p>
<p>I don't think that was me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because they don't HAVE the choice to go home and have a prosperous life. That is what I object to, the forcing, by corrupt governments of vulnerable people to undertake the dangerous migration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Until we can change that, do you agree that most immigrants, even undocumented ones, bring net productivity into the nation? Do you agree that the economic concept behind welfare and aid is to create an economic investment and generate a return, not carry out some moralistic redistribution? If so, let us talk about solvency here -- sorry that we don't have enough power to force such nations to stop being so economically myopic, but inaction (the status quo) is even worse in terms of solvency.</p>
<p>Going back to your home country is overrated ... it's the culture you're raised in that matters, not the geography.</p>
<p>galoisien, I disagree with the premise that following a legal process to gain citizenship is unjust. I think the system needs to be improved, but I do not think the principle of it is unjust. So yes, I think the immigration laws should be obeyed. If people want them changed, they should become legal citizens and vote to have them changed. Until then, it is futile as far as I'm concerned, to try to make moral arguments about entitlements, fairness, or ethics.</p>
<p>"Going back to your home country is overrated ... it's the culture you're raised in that matters, not the "</p>
<p>That's where the kid perspective comes in, and I'm NOT insulting you. You don't understand the heartache of the people who are here and didn't particlarly want to be here, love their families and cultures. Youre arguing that people shouldn't be forced to leave the culture that they were raised in, to leave what is familiar. Believe it or not, so am I.</p>
<p>galoisien, FLVADAD: It sounds like you have reached that common ground where you can agree to disagree: law and order vs. moral correctness.</p>
<p>Sort of...?</p>
<p>Endorsing a social contract view of citizenship is not eschewing law and order ... simply endorsing a <em>higher</em> law and order than what is codified on paper.</p>
<p>The question it comes down to is legalism versus contractualism.</p>
<p>
What is the idea behind a vote? It is to affirm self-governance, no? If you exclude a group of people who work citizen, think citizen, contribute citizen, and would pay tax in citizen if it were possible, can you still have a "government of the people, by the people..."?</p>
<p>Voting is only <em>one</em> of the ways to express consensus in a democracy, but it seems that these days it is regarded as the only way. And I can see why Rousseau was so unhappy with the way the social contract is treated in a representative democracy!</p>
<p>"Women ... if you want to vote, first, you should change your sex to a man, then, lobby for suffrage." </p>
<p>The freedom to enter and leave a social contract is integral is critical to a just and morally legal social contract, as it has been detailed by Rousseau, and so any contract which places undue restrictions on immigration or emigration cannot possibly be just or contractually legal (in the Lockean sense). </p>
<p>Anything else, creates a political situation where the government becomes further and further distanced away from the consensus of the society that agreed to the contract.</p>
<p>
[quote=zoosermom]
people shouldn't be forced to leave the culture that they were raised in[/q]
But I have trouble with the idea that we're <em>forcing</em> them by simply having better economic conditions. We can't change the conditions of their country, but meanwhile we can achieve some solvency.</p>
<p>"But I have trouble with the idea that we're <em>forcing</em> them by simply having better economic conditions. We can't change the conditions of their country, "</p>
<p>We are supporting their governments in forcing them. Enabling, if you will. We CAN change it, but some don't want to. Not the same thing at all.</p>
<p>So if I provide a place of welcome for say, a neighbour's kid next door who's been abused and neglected, I'm enabling that abuse? Enabling is permitting the <em>abuser</em> to get away with it. </p>
<p>Economically, it's beneficial for both nation and individual. You can generate a return on that individual here, or allow him to languish there ...</p>
<p>good!!! screw illegals they dont pay taxes or anything, so why should they be allowed into colleges on citizen's dime? No way, and to think O'Bama wants to give them all free healthcare.</p>
<p>Galosien, we are enabling the abusers to get away with it. By allowing them to continue to fail to provide education, opportunity, clean water, health care for its citizens. The behavior hasn't changed, and we haven't rescued "the child next door," we've made it profitable for his government to abuse him. As long as we support that, we are enabling the abuse. I know you're a kid who just enjoys seeing him/herself post, but your posts make very clear that individual human beings are of no conseqence to you. Very sad. As I said on the other thread, I wonder if your mother knows what you are thinking and how bitter you are. Your parents' divorce obviously hurt you deeply, and I hope you either get help or get joy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but your posts make very clear that individual human beings are of no conseqence to you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? I am recommending an alternative that is also not only more humanitarian but also more economically efficient.</p>
<p>I am certainly not a Bentham (who seemed to be more of a consequentialist), if that's what you are implying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we've made it profitable for his government to abuse him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This makes no sense when ultimately that country is going to lose out on the profit in the long run ... </p>
<p>Meanwhile, our horde of talented individuals will only increase.</p>
<p>To test the "enabling theory," consider this. What if we started shooting every illegal immigrant that came across the border, to the extent that the desire to come to the US dropped to near zero? Ignoring the moral depravities of such an act and focusing on what would happen to the souce countries themselves alone, how would not letting them come here aid the situation over there? It wouldn't, not unless they somehow gain the economic power to gain the political power that will give them a better situation....</p>
<p>Who controls the past controls the future .... who controls the present controls the past.</p>
<p>"This makes no sense when ultimately that country is going to lose out on the profit in the long run ... "</p>
<p>We're not talking about the long run, we're talking about the ruling elites in Mexico and Gatemala right now. As long as we create a safety valve for the unhappiness in their countries, the leadership is not accountable and does not have to change. As long as the remittances keep on coming, the people will be supported by their loved-ones who immigrated (and by extension the American taxpayer) and the ruling elite in their countries will not be accountable to their people.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many of the group that I am talking about aren't particularly talented. They aren't literate in English and many are not literate in Spanish and have no history of literacy in any language. That person is very difficult to help assimilate, and it's not within that generation that self-sufficiency will come.</p>
<p>"I am certainly not a Bentham (who seemed to be more of a consequentialist), if that's what you are implying."</p>
<p>I'm not implying anything. I am stating clearly that you are a young person who could use a helping hand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As long as we create a safety valve for the unhappiness in their countries
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm a bit confused when you accuse me of lack of human compassion here, because "make them stay there in appalling conditions until violent anger explodes into a civil war" seems much worse ethically as well as in terms of solvency.</p>
<p>Economically, the only role that the ruling elite in those countries provide is to provide their capital to help us tide over the investment in their poor. But the whole point of investment is again, to generate returns, and if the poor do not achieve it there, it makes economic sense to try it here instead. </p>
<p>Yes, leadership needs to be accountable over there, but what is the role of good or accountable government? Good management of the resources of that nation; and so if they provide to be so unaccountable that the human resources do not wish to endure any of such crap, the human resources can arrive here to be better managed -- perhaps to have an actual chance to thrive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, many of the group that I am talking about aren't particularly talented.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I bet the undocumented students who want to go to college are similar, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am stating clearly that you are a young person who could use a helping hand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, how can I say anything when you put it that way? ;)</p>
<p>I'm a bit confused when you accuse me of lack of human compassion here, because "make them stay there in appalling conditions until violent anger explodes into a civil war" seems much worse ethically as well as in terms of solvency."</p>
<p>Where in the name of heaven did you get that? Re-read. I am advocating supporting those countries in making living conditions better for their citizens. I do think that there needs to be anger in order to bring accountability, but that doesn't mean violent revolution. I respectfully submit to you that yo'ure just not getting this discussion.</p>
<p>" bet the undocumented students who want to go to college are similar, right?"</p>
<p>Many of the young people who cross my path are in that position. Many are even in gangs.</p>
<p>galo, you are playing loose with a lot of rhetoric here and wiggling every angle you can think of, I suppose. However, try as you might, I'm not likely to be convinced that it's okay to short circuit legalities. I do not accept your premise of establishing new common laws by violating the exisiting ones to the extent they cease to be relevant. That does seem to be the strategy unfortunately. No good will come of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
short circuit legalities.
[/quote]
You view it as a short-circuit. What is your definition of Law?</p>
<p>Do you think there are principles within a family that members follow? A law to that extent? Does it have to be codified and changed through legislature for those principles to change?</p>
<p>The common law <em>has</em> changed, or is in the process of being changed, to the extent that an increasing amount of people (even in the majority) are not buying into the old antiquated xenophobic bullcrap.</p>
<p>It's not a short-circuit. Does one need a Legislature to determine the Laws of the market that allocate production resources?</p>
<p>I'm citing relevant arguments from philosophy here, and I can't see how I'm "playing loose with a lot of rhetoric". Wiggling? That is quite the irony for it seems that you're the one wiggling on this point.</p>
<p>All of this on top of the fact that in order to have a just social contract in the first place, one must have the right to freely enter and exit that arrangement. Restrictions on immigration (as are restrictions on emigration, as well as restrictions on direct democracy) distort this.</p>
<p>
<p>So you do admit that they have the ambition to go to college, which to me, is the critical part...
[quote] I am advocating supporting those countries in making living conditions better for their citizens.
</p>
<p>SOLVENCY.</p>
<p>What is our role to be? We can wait for them to change, or we can institute the change ourselves. The economic output is the same -- with the end that we receive the long-term returns, not the rich who refused to help.</p>
<p>I don't get why you don't think the "long-term" is pertinent. The long-term is everything.</p>
<p>"The long-term is everything."</p>
<p>Not at all. The long term is defined by the here and now.</p>
<p>" bet the undocumented students who want to go to college are similar, right?"
Some are and some are not. Human beings are different, you know?</p>
<p>"So you do admit that they have the ambition to go to college"
No. What I was referring to was that many who cross my path are not particularly talented.
No it is not. The</p>
<p>No. They should be deported.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. They should be deported.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So should have the Pilgrims. </p>
<p>Illegal immigrants aren't legally allowed to get drivers' licenses, i think that's what the lawyer meant.</p>