BBC News Chimes in on US Immigration (Gee, Thanks...?)

[ecoli]

How do illegals pay tax? In the UK you'd need a national insurance number, which illegal immigrants wouldnt have?

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html#Estimated

[Dak]

Ah right.

 

Actually, come to think of it, i suppose an illegal in the UK would still pay VAT, council tax etc.

[Pangloss]

It's just one article' date=' by one seemingly biased reporter. it's hardly representative of the BBCs normal stance on this issue.

[/quote']

 

I know, I've indicated above that I'm taking it that way (as you say).

[Jim]

I think this brings up the central reason why I don't dislike immigrants. I don't value someone more because they are the same nationality as myself. in fact, I tend to have a higher opinion of the disadvantaged from underdeveloped countries because they have at least had the initiative to try and do something about it, while the disadvantaged from my own society have failed in a comparatively rich environment. (That is of course a generalization.)

 

I'm not sure who here has said that they don't like immigrants but, for the record, I'm not in that category.

 

A country, company, university, organization or science debate forum usually wants to maintain control over its own membership.

[Callipygous]

If the system worked 'just fine' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

you can be a snot with your little rolleyes smiley all you want, but it doenst make you right.

 

as ecoli was astute enough to notice, the system works fine, its enforcing it we have problems with.

 

 

That is not only barbaric - it is moronic.

 

thank you for your extremely well thought out and intelligent rebuttal. Got any reasons why its either of those things?

 

 

(1)Unfortunately this is not the reason that you restrict immigrants. (2)Firstly, you restrict them because they are culturally different from yourself. (3)Secondly you restrict them because you have a (false) perception that people with degrees from rich countries are going to be more useful to your society.

 

1. baseless assumption.

2. is culture not a valid part of a society? whats wrong with protecting culture? more importantly, who are you to say that this is why we have the restrictions we do?

3. your suggesting that well educated people with money to stimulate the economy arent going to be more useful than people who are probably going to need at least a little assistance from things like welfare?

 

You (and the UK for that matter) are squandering an incredibly valuable resource. We would all be better off economically if we found some way to help the immigrants become useful members of our society. I find it a little surprising that the US, given its history, hasn't learnt this.

 

we need only so much cheap labor. we have plenty already.

[Pangloss]

---------------------------------------------

 

^-- The above line indicates the end of the personal slurs, and the point after which warnings will be issued if they continue.

[swansont]

Ah right.

 

Actually' date=' come to think of it, i suppose an illegal in the UK would still pay VAT, council tax etc.[/quote']

 

I fear the economic arguments have been over-simplified. Immigrants may not pay some taxes, but then, the products and services they help provide are correspondingly cheaper, and that helps the economy. It seems to me that some of the arguments against a minimum wage and for tax cuts appy here.

[Dak]

I fear the economic arguments have been over-simplified. Immigrants may not pay some taxes, but then, the products and services they help provide are correspondingly cheaper, and that helps the economy. It seems to me that some of the arguments against a minimum wage and for tax cuts appy here.

 

You may well be right; but, if that's the case, i'd rather see official lowering of minimum wage/tax cuts for certain people, rather than illigal immigration.

[Severian]

you can be a snot with your little rolleyes smiley all you want

 

A 'snot'? Lol' date=' how old are you?

 

as ecoli was astute enough to notice, the system works fine, its enforcing it we have problems with.

 

A perfectly enforced system would work, but first of all, the current system is impossible to enforce because it encourages people to circumvent it, and secondly you are losing a resource which would make everyone richer.

 

 

Got any reasons why its either of those things?

 

Do you really need me to explain why I think shooting illegal aliens would be barbaric?

 

 

2. is culture not a valid part of a society? whats wrong with protecting culture? more importantly, who are you to say that this is why we have the restrictions we do?

 

The first two sentences in your point indicates that it is a reason for the restrictions. I think if you asked the average person on the street (and it is the opinions of voters which count) you will get an answer containing the words 'them' and 'us'.

 

3. your suggesting that well educated people with money to stimulate the economy arent going to be more useful than people who are probably going to need at least a little assistance from things like welfare?

 

Now it is you who are making the assumptions. Illegal aliens may need a little help getting set up but there is no reason why they would need welfare once they have found a good productive place in society. They are just as likely to find a productive place as many of the teenagers who are of 'white culture' but sponge off the state for years and years.

[Callipygous]

A 'snot'? Lol, how old are you?

 

old enough to tell you what i think of the obnoxiously arrogant smiley you chose to use without swearing.

 

 

 

A perfectly enforced system would work, but first of all, the current system is impossible to enforce because it encourages people to circumvent it, and secondly you are losing a resource which would make everyone richer.

 

every system is impossible to enforce 100%, were not doing a very good job with this one, but we can certainly enforce it much better than we are.

 

 

 

Do you really need me to explain why I think shooting illegal aliens would be barbaric?

 

id like you to give it a shot.

imagine an installation on the top of a hill. when it senses someone it sets off a siren, there are signs posted in multiple languages, it states a warning. if they dont listen, and ignore the signs, they are shot. now please, tell me how thats barbaric any more than a police officer taking down a criminal who wont stop.

 

 

The first two sentences in your point indicates that it is a reason for the restrictions. I think if you asked the average person on the street (and it is the opinions of voters which count) you will get an answer containing the words 'them' and 'us'.

 

my first two points were hypothetical, assuming you were actually right.

 

us being a word used to descibe the group you are in (citizens) and them meaning a different group (non citizens)...

 

thats a fact based on the english language, how else would they say it?

[Mokele]

imagine an installation on the top of a hill. when it senses someone it sets off a siren, there are signs posted in multiple languages, it states a warning. if they dont listen, and ignore the signs, they are shot. now please, tell me how thats barbaric any more than a police officer taking down a criminal who wont stop.

 

The police are only allowed to shoot fleeing criminals if they pose a serious danger to others. If they're an escaped serial-killer, they can be shot. If they're running away when stealing a DVD player, they can be chased and apprehended in a non-lethal way.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

A perfectly enforced system would work' date=' but first of all, the current system is impossible to enforce because it encourages people to circumvent it, and secondly you are losing a resource which would make everyone richer.[/quote']

 

The economic argument you make would be true, if there was a shortage of labor in this country. However, we have many unemployed in this country, that could be required to work these jobs (say as a requirement for collecting umemployment checks).

[Severian]

The economic argument you make would be true, if there was a shortage of labor in this country. However, we have many unemployed in this country, that could be required to work these jobs (say as a requirement for collecting umemployment checks).

 

This is a good point, because it illustrates what I think is a misconception. We usually believe that jobs like being a lawyer or a doctor or a banker require a person with a particular mental disposition. This is true: they need to be trained and in order to get through that training and be effective in the job they have to have a degree of intelligence and self organization which many people do not have. Therefore there is a restricted class of people who can do these jobs.

 

However, we usually also believe that the vast majority of jobs, such as a garbage collector, a mailman, a labourer or a burger flipper can be done by anyone. There is no training required therefore there is no restriction on who can do these jobs.

 

But the latter opinion is not true. Most of these jobs require a certain disposition or outlook on life. I certainly could not do any of these jobs because I am too highly trained. My disposition is entirely wrong, and I wouldn't last very long in any of them. (This is putting aside the fact that I would be too expensive to hire.)

 

The problem with unemployment in the west is not that there are no jobs, it is that the population is trained in the wrong things. Have you ever tried to get a plumber on short notice? Why should that be such a problem in a society with unemployment? It is because the unemployed don't want to be plumbers - they want to be 'management consultants', or 'IT specialists' or whatever. I don't think there is anything wrong with this per se, but we do need people to do the less skilled jobs too.

[Dak]

Dont forget that a certain level of unenployment is good for the economy/country. too little unenployment equates to a labour-shortage.

 

I believe that something like 10-15% unenployment is supposed to be ideal.

 

Your unenployment rate is <5%, so maybe theire's an economic argument for letting more immigrants in (depends on wether i'm remembering the ideal unemployment rate correctly).

[ecoli]

Dont forget that a certain level of unenployment is good for the economy/country. too little unenployment equates to a labour-shortage.

 

I believe that something like 10-15% unenployment is supposed to be ideal.

 

Your unenployment rate is <5%' date=' so maybe theire's an economic argument for letting more immigrants in (depends on wether i'm remembering the ideal unemployment rate correctly).[/quote']

 

You make a good point, though I think Severian is overestimating the amount of training it takes to flip a burger.

 

Also, in regards to wages, yes, they are going to take a pay cut, but it's better then being unemployed, isn't it.

[Severian]

I believe that something like 10-15% unenployment is supposed to be ideal.

 

That soiunds far too high. The unemployment in the UK is much lower than that (although I think the way they count is rather dodgy.

 

You make a good point' date=' though I think Severian is overestimating the amount of training it takes to flip a burger.

[/quote']

 

I was more saying that training in anything else makes you unsuitable for flipping burgers.

[GutZ]

I'd usually make a really mean comparsion, but I won't.

 

I think the main problem is morality and mentality mixing in with politics. I don't think anyone here is saying that a country can support by themselves an unrealistic amount of people. The way the arguement is presented though seem to imply national centric mentality. It's presented in a way that "Us" and "Them" in a close minded way. Ultimately it's the fear that at one point US citizens will start feeling drastic affects of this problem which might be felt on their families. Which is the exact position of the opposed arguement that the immigrants are already in that position of not being able to care for their family. Problem is presentation.

 

If your stating your concern for your obligations to your family or country and supporting them based on assumptions whether or not those are your true intentions it doesn't help prove the point. Blaming them for the economy doesn't help the situation. Saying that the rules need to be more stricter because the "influx" as you put it will also not work. The problem still exists, people still want a chance to support their families just like you or me. There is also the assumption on free loading. Again that doesn't solve anything. There will always be free loaders.

 

It's not just a problem in the US either, every major country who is economically stable and has freedoms will have this problem. The countries that people are coming from probably don't share this status. I am still an immigrant. We were lucky my father was a very skilled tradesman. We came from the Netherlands. I can't imagine how hard it would be for people that don't have the resources to acquire such "importance" to immgirate.

 

So to me I see the problem lying at the origin of the source. Unless we can make these place more suitable for people to live, they will find a better place. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone of us would do the same. Problem is that no one wants to spent money to help other countries. This is humanity. There has to be a point where we can drop the invisible borders and help the people who are not as forunate as us and not ignore them based on assumption, but at the same time in a realistic manner. I am not saying global communism either, just suitability.

 

It also seems to me that everyone wants the same thing basically. It's just how its being dealt with and how people present the problem thats making this such a big friggin deal. If you could just say what the absolute problem is and say "we can't handle it", "we need help" or "this is the best we can do for now" people can sympatize knowing it's not for selfish close minded reasons. It may seem like it's redundant to have to tip toe around what you want to say, but its the difference between sounding like Hitler, and someone who sees a problem and want to fix it.

[ecoli]

I think the main problem is morality and mentality mixing in with politics. I don't think anyone here is saying that a country can support by themselves an unrealistic amount of people. The way the arguement is presented though seem to imply national centric mentality. It's presented in a way that "Us" and "Them" in a close minded way. Ultimately it's the fear that at one point US citizens will start feeling drastic affects of this problem which might be felt on their families. Which is the exact position of the opposed arguement that the immigrants are already in that position of not being able to care for their family. Problem is presentation.

 

This isn't really true for me... I usually present my opinions as extremes when I'm debating a subject. In reality, I'm a lot more central in my opinions. (Anybody else like that?)

[GutZ]

Well I figure it had to be said. I saw too much back and forth talk and no one seeing each others points very well.

 

Just call me...(low voice) The Mediator! Armed with vague sayings and pointless assertions.

[Pangloss]

(wave wave)

 

It was an interesting post, though, GutZ.

 

I also thought Severian's point about training was interesting.

 

 

(Edit: Cross-posted with Gutz, but this was a reply to Ecoli just above.)

[Callipygous]

This isn't really true for me... I usually present my opinions as extremes when I'm debating a subject. In reality, I'm a lot more central in my opinions. (Anybody else like that?)

 

 

sort of... a little bit.

 

i understand the other sides of the argument, and think they are reasonable. the views i have settled on are after taking that into consideration and deciding what i think needs to be done anyway.

 

for example, i understand that its pretty extreme to shoot someone who is entering the country illegally. however, i think its just about the only way to really stem the flow of people who think its ok to just walk across the border. fences and walls will be climbed over and tunneled under, patrols will be evaded, and laws will be ignored.

 

everyone listens to a big heartless gun. if they dont, thats thier problem. with the system i described it will be abundantly clear what is acceptable and what is not, and breaking into my country, especially considering recent events, is not ok.

 

i cant believe the audacity of people who will enter a country illegally, and then protest in the streets about not being treated the same way as the legal citizens. thats like breaking into someones house and suing them for not offering you a snack.

[ecoli]

i cant believe the audacity of people who will enter a country illegally, and then protest in the streets about not being treated the same way as the legal citizens. thats like breaking into someones house and suing them for not offering you a snack.

 

indeed... but in this country, I'm sure it has happened.

[Callipygous]

indeed... but in this country, I'm sure it has happened.

 

 

not quite, but people have sued (successfully no less) for injuries recieved while breaking into someones house. eg. robber cuts himself while breaking a window, sues the owner for injuries. and wins.

[Jim]

It didn't seem we ever got a satisfactory answer as to what the Brits are doing to control their own borders. I received an emails with a bunch of Arabic protesters carrying outrageous signs ("slay those who insult islam;" "Europe is the Cancer; Islam is the Answer;" "Islam will Dominate the World.").

 

My first reaction was assume that this was a put up job, so I went to snopes who actually validated the photos.

 

This has me wondering if Britain borders might be as out of control as our own.

[Saryctos]

Illegal immigration, means no record of you moving. Noone knows your real name, noone knows where you are going, noone knows if you're a criminal from where you originated, noone knows if you have explosives or guns, noone knows anything about you. The idea that people want to close the country off, is foolish, very little to noone wants to stop immigration into the US. They simply want to stop unchartable, non documented immigration, as it should not exist in the first place. The rallying to defend an illegal process is rather mind boggling(/boggle).

 

EDIT: I never really thought the BBC to be that US friendly anyways, I mean we did revolt against them =P