Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its impossible to fully abate the flow of illegal immigrants.

Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Yes, you can. Illegal is not tacit to immoral.

That principal is actually one which underlies the founding of America.

halonachos wrote:
Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states.

No, that's incorrect. In most cases American rights are contingent upon humanity, not citizenship.

halonachos wrote:
So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Why are you assuming that illegals are the people protesting?

halonachos wrote:
Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

You would first have to point out the law which indicates that people are only to be thought of as US citizens.

Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

You could make the same argument for the right to bear arms and the concept of militias being similarly outdated.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Very few people support the illegal aspect of immigration, and most that defend migrants either do it out of some sort of humanism or an actual understanding of the sheer lunacy of American immigration laws concerning migrants from south of the border. When the immigration list has wait times of upwards of ten years then it's clearly broken and worthless. If illegal immigrants are illegal because an utterly dysfunctional legalization process then it logically is going to breed a considerable amount of sympathy.

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Migrant protests aren't entirely composed of illegals, thats the kind of gak you usually only hear in conservative spam newsletters.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

There is considerable debate about whether the bill of rights pertains to all people, and not just US citizens. Taking it entirely as written it would imply everyone, and historically that was quite likely the intent given the treatment of english soldiers in the war for independence and the general philosophical trends of the age. It was a more civilized time in many respects.

I'm not saying that all migrant protestors... yadda, yadda.

All I said was that specifically, ILLEGAL immigrants shouldn't have the right to protest. I never said migrants, conservative tv shows, etc.

Actually the treatment of english soldiers was only due to the fact that they had colonials as prisoners as well. It wasn't civilized, it was a primitive version of "equally assured destruction".

And no, I can't compare the right to bear arms, etc to the law allowing the children of slaves to be citizens. I would argue that the militias and 2nd amendment are much, much broader in use than a law that details the specifics of a person being born in the country gaining citizenship automatically.

Most of what I've seen, along with thousands of others, is that people come into the country illegally as a way to better the lives of their family.

If I sold drugs so that my child could go to college, then I should get the same support, because I was only bettering the life of my child.

An illegal act is an illegal act and deserves punishment.

All I said was that specifically, ILLEGAL immigrants shouldn't have the right to protest. I never said migrants, conservative tv shows, etc.

Well we don't hire psychics or magicians as cops any more.

Actually the treatment of english soldiers was only due to the fact that they had colonials as prisoners as well. It wasn't civilized, it was a primitive version of "equally assured destruction".

They were also treated better than the writ of the law, and some famous "founding fathers" took exception to their ill treatment on notable occasions.

And no, I can't compare the right to bear arms, etc to the law allowing the children of slaves to be citizens

Sure you can, you just don't want too because it would either delegitimize your belief or cast your opinion into doubt.

I would argue that the militias and 2nd amendment are much, much broader in use than a law that details the specifics of a person being born in the country gaining citizenship automatically.

And I would argue that a militia is a simplistic concept and that it's not broad at all, just as the concept of the location of birth is no less important in ensuring protections against the tyranny of governance.

Most of what I've seen, along with thousands of others, is that people come into the country illegally as a way to better the lives of their family.

If I sold drugs so that my child could go to college, then I should get the same support, because I was only bettering the life of my child.

This is the part of your post where you make a second attempt at implying that illegal immigrants are here to sell drugs or that entering a country illegally is tacit to selling prohibited substances. It's also the part where you're argument breaks down. By that same logic I guess speeders and drug dealers are the same. Murderers too. Lets throw out the belief that different things are different because they are different. Everyone goes to jail. America is fixed.

An illegal act is an illegal act and deserves punishment.

So you would be for the beating and possible lynching of black slaves that fled from their masters in the good old days? I mean, if it's all the same. The law is paramount after all, it's not like there could be such a thing as laws that are wrongly conceived or enforced!

Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Its not as cut & dry as a yes/no answer as you'd think either. A good freind of mine works for Az DES, and since they currently cant ask for citizenship paperwork- their ability to exclude or include someone based on nationality is often limited. So alot of happy illegals make it out the door once they learn the tricks of the system.

When I was on an ambulance crew in the early 90's, working out of Sierra Vista, we really hated the calls for pregneant women along side the road. They''d cross over right before they were gonna pop, and then sit on the side of a busy road til someone helped them. It was those times I really wished we could have taken them to a mexican hospital or clinic for such a blatant misuse of our laws. The moms never spoke english except to say, 'Hospital!! Baby!' And thats how they get on welfare, food stamps, and a several other free money deals.

halonachos wrote:
All I said was that specifically, ILLEGAL immigrants shouldn't have the right to protest. I never said migrants, conservative tv shows, etc.

Should we question all protesters as to the legality of their status?

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

What rights are you talking about?

As pointed out earlier, the law granting citizenship to people born in the US is the 14th amendment, and can't be overturned by any legislation, let alone state legislation. There are some compelling arguments to made to allow exceptions, but it would take a court challenge and it's doubtful that the Supreme Court would overturn 150 years of precedent.

Also, few, if any, constitutional rights are contingent on citizenship, or even legal entry to the united states. The actual legal reason is that the rights aren't rights granted to people, but actually limitations placed on the government. It's not that we have the right to free speech, it's that the government doesn't have the power to restrict it.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:The fact that illegals are having kids to be lawfully kept in the country is an obvious attempt at leeching off our welfare programs because now they qualify because their child is now a US citizen.

Actually, its an attempt to force naturalization. The US cannot deport its own citizens, and therefore cannot force the child to return to Mexico. Unless the state intends to make the child an orphan, the parents are granted tacit citizenship. Since citizens pay taxes, there is no 'leeching' going on.

Fateweaver wrote:
Sorry, epic fail that social program is.

Unemployment benefits are a form of welfare.

Stop being purposely obtuse. You just love to jab at me with the "unemployment is welfare" stick. You know what forms of welfare I was talking about with my comment about welfare leeches and for as educated as you make yourself out to be you come off as an idiot in your knowledge of how unemployment works, either that or you are being ignorant on purpose just to be a dick. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.

Food stamps and MA and WIC ARE NOT the same level or caliber as unemployment benefits. The former I can go get any time I want so long as I qualify and generally gives me MORE benefits than straight up unemployment. The latter I have to HAVE held a job and gotten laid off (if I quit or get fired for any reason NO UI) in order to obtain. COBRA extended my health insurance benefits up to 18 months post-employment BUT I had to keep paying for the insurance. It wasn't SUDDENLY free for 18 months, I still had to spend the $120/month I was paying while I was working. BUT given I was getting such a small amount of UI I had to drop the insurance altogether.

Again, Dogma. You and Shuma like to attack my anti-welfare posts by using UI benefits as a counter-post. As I pointed out you know damn well the 2 aren't one in the same or even on the same level of "welfare". If I had wanted to during those 16 months I was unemployed I COULD have applied for actual food stamps and MA but I didn't as I didn't EARN those. I had to EARN the UI benefits I was getting. One is earned, one is not. The better of the 2 welfare programs is NOT earned welfare, hence IMO it is a program that should go away. Nobody should get something for nothing. Everyone should have to work for what they receive.

Fateweaver wrote:
Stop being purposely obtuse. You just love to jab at me with the "unemployment is welfare" stick. You know what forms of welfare I was talking about with my comment about welfare leeches and for as educated as you make yourself out to be you come off as an idiot in your knowledge of how unemployment works, either that or you are being ignorant on purpose just to be a dick. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.

I'm simply pointing out that you have benefited from a welfare program.

But no, I don't know what welfare programs you're talking about, as you never indicated which ones you intended to critique. I may have been able to make an inference based on your comments, but I am hesitant to do so as you seem to believe that illegal immigrants can easily claim welfare benefits. They cannot, so I'm not willing to expound on your seemingly frustrated remarks.

Fateweaver wrote:
Food stamps and MA and WIC ARE NOT the same level or caliber as unemployment benefits.

I really don't think we should be putting various form of welfare into an emotive hierarchy. I can understand how doing so might make you feel better, but it seems useless from the perspective of policy analysis.

Fateweaver wrote:
The former I can go get any time I want so long as I qualify and generally gives me MORE benefits than straight up unemployment.

In Minnesota you must have a gross annual income at or below 130% of the Federal poverty guideline in order to receive food support. The requirements for WIC are the same as those for food support, with the addition of bearing the responsibility for a child. Medical assistance requires that all non-elderly people of majority to share some of the financial burden of medical care.

Fateweaver wrote:
If I had wanted to during those 16 months I was unemployed I COULD have applied for actual food stamps and MA but I didn't as I didn't EARN those. I had to EARN the UI benefits I was getting.

There is no shame in taking any form of welfare. There is shame in abusing those programs, but if the aid really is needed then it isn't shameful to take it. However, no form of welfare is earned. If it were earned, it wouldn't be welfare. Unless you consider carrying a child, or earning less than a certain amount of money to be equivalent to 'earning' something.

Fateweaver wrote:
One is earned, one is not. The better of the 2 welfare programs is NOT earned welfare, hence IMO it is a program that should go away. Nobody should get something for nothing. Everyone should have to work for what they receive.

You were compensated for your employment by your employer. The state gave you money in order to facilitate your job search, and to allow you to sustain yourself between positions. Your prior work, while used as a requirement for eligibility, does not represent an action which established dessert.

I thought unemployment was closer to a transfer payment than welfare, with employers paying in a certain amount.

Unemployment is a something that "vests" after a certain length of time working, which is far closer to ownership and being earned than a welfare benefit which is provided based solely on one's current status. Unemployment is paid out based on a person's previous status.

I can tell you first hand from knowing a few illegals that a trick some use is to have a business of some type in Mexico. They work here under the table and send a little cash home to keep the business going and somehow use it as a means to stay here.
The business can be a box on a street corner with shirts on it and they call it a clothing store or what have you, but the pretense is that they have a business in Mexico, so aren't leaching from this country.
I personally know a guy that does this and he's a big ticket slime job that I've had run ins with before.

Polonius wrote:I thought unemployment was closer to a transfer payment than welfare, with employers paying in a certain amount.

Unemployment is a something that "vests" after a certain length of time working, which is far closer to ownership and being earned than a welfare benefit which is provided based solely on one's current status. Unemployment is paid out based on a person's previous status.

It is Polonius. Employers pay into the UI system, NOT your average working American. That is why not all employers offer unemployment benefits upon laying you off because it's not paid for by NON-EMPLOYERS. If it was than no employer could refuse you UI benefits. You also have to have left cleanly on your own. Get fired or quit? No UI. No matter what your reason for quitting the UI agency can refuse you benefits. You can appeal the decision but that means 4-6 more weeks of posturing and no money coming in.

130% below Federal minimum eh? I have friends in Mn that make $40k plus per year and were still able to get WIC. Last I heard poverty for a family of 4 is like $30k dollars (in that ballpark).

@Doogma. Keep thinking what you want. UI is earned because I had to be part of the tax-paying populace, work long enough to qualify and lose my job through no fault of my own. If you don't call earning that then I guess benefits like vacation time aren't earned either.

All welfare programs are at least partially funded through the payroll tax associated with FICA.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that unemployment is the only program based on past performance. As I understand it, things like food stamps and medical aid are provided to people based on their past or expected income. True, they can also be awarded on the basis of monthly income, but unemployment is comparable in that it is ultimately determined by current status; an employed person isn't going to receive unemployment.

It might differ state to state but here in Mn the MA/Foodstamp/WIC bums have it a lot better off than I had it. The difference is I had to actually have worked at some point in time, they didn't.

A single mom with infant kid gets MA meaning free care for her infant, she gets WIC meaning none of the foodstamp money (EBT dollars) has to go to baby food or anything like that since WIC covers it plus she would get around $400/month to cover things like gas and cigarettes and booze (things NOT covered by the EBT fund or WIC). Now kick the kids up to 3. WIC/MA/EBT still covers for all 3 kids but NOW she just got an increase to over $1k per month for gas, booze, cigs, drugs, whatever.

Welfare queens exist because all the essentials are provided by the government PLUS they get a monthly allotment of money for anything not covered. If everthing in life is paid for by the government you can take the $1k you get and buy a new car easily. Low income housing, tax breaks and even discounts on cable/internet and cell phones makes living better than your average family of 4 easier and more believable.

Fateweaver wrote:
It is Polonius. Employers pay into the UI system, NOT your average working American. That is why not all employers offer unemployment benefits upon laying you off because it's not paid for by NON-EMPLOYERS. If it was than no employer could refuse you UI benefits.

Employers cannot refuse you unemployment insurance. Certain jobs are exempt from the Federal Unemployment Tax, but most full-time workers are covered. Coverage is not determined by the employer, but by the state.

Fateweaver wrote:
130% below Federal minimum eh? I have friends in Mn that make $40k plus per year and were still able to get WIC. Last I heard poverty for a family of 4 is like $30k dollars (in that ballpark).

Yes it is. Forty thousand dollars isn't a lot of money for a family to live on. The average household income is roughly $60,000.

Fateweaver wrote:
@Doogma. Keep thinking what you want. UI is earned because I had to be part of the tax-paying populace, work long enough to qualify and lose my job through no fault of my own. If you don't call earning that then I guess benefits like vacation time aren't earned either.

Vacation benefits are provided voluntarily. Unemployment insurance is not.

dogma wrote:All welfare programs are at least partially funded through the payroll tax associated with FICA.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that unemployment is the only program based on past performance. As I understand it, things like food stamps and medical aid are provided to people based on their past or expected income. True, they can also be awarded on the basis of monthly income, but unemployment is comparable in that it is ultimately determined by current status; an employed person isn't going to receive unemployment.

You still need to have worked for both enough time (calender wise) and enough hours in each pay period to qualify. For example, I worked at Target and they lay their seasonal employees off right before they'd qualify for Unemployment.

I mean, I'm unemployed now and i can't claim UI. I probably come pretty close to food assitance though, as my savings dwindle (savings are a big part of food stamps, at least in ohio, just as much as current income). The two programs still differ in who qualifies: one is anybody currently broke and poor, the other is only those who lost jobs.

It's worth noting that Unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

Fateweaver wrote:
A single mom with infant kid gets MA meaning free care for her infant, she gets WIC meaning none of the foodstamp money (EBT dollars) has to go to baby food or anything like that since WIC covers it plus she would get around $400/month to cover things like gas and cigarettes and booze (things NOT covered by the EBT fund or WIC).

Where is the $400 coming from? WIC doesn't offer monetary support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:The two programs still differ in who qualifies: one is anybody currently broke and poor, the other is only those who lost jobs.

Well sure, but all welfare programs differ in that the criteria for qualification is not identical across the board. The fact that you must have a child to be eligible for Women, Infants, and Children assistance does not change the fact that it welfare, and therefore comparable to food support or medical assistance. Similarly, I don't think that unemployment being contingent on having been employed disqualifies it from consideration as welfare as it is a benefit imposed, and administered by the state.

The majority of Americans out of work do not qualify for unemployment insurance. This includes part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers.
Generally, the worker must be unemployed through no fault of his/her own (generally through lay-offs). Unemployment benefits are based on reported covered quarterly earnings. The amount of earnings and the number of quarters worked are used to determine the length and value of the unemployment benefit. The average weekly payment is 36 percent of the individual's average weekly wage.

Please note the line about REPORTED earnings. Many illegals work "off the books" so they have no "reported Earnings.

The eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines. If a person participates in other benefit programs, or has family members who participate in the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they automatically meet the eligibility requirements.

A woman who is pregnant and meets only one of these requirements qualifies. They also get Medicaid and qualify for food stamps as the qualifications are almost identical.
They only have to report their legal reportable income.. if they work off the books they do not have to report for these programs as it is not reported for other purposes, such as taxes.

dogma wrote:
Well sure, but all welfare programs differ in that the criteria for qualification is not identical across the board. The fact that you must have a child to be eligible for Women, Infants, and Children assistance does not change the fact that it welfare, and therefore comparable to food support or medical assistance. Similarly, I don't think that unemployment being contingent on having been employed disqualifies it from consideration as welfare as it is a benefit imposed, and administered by the state.

By that argument, a federal employees salary is welfare, as it's a benefit imposed and administered by the state.

I think most people separate the social welfare paid out of payroll taxes (social security, medicare, and UI) from Welfare paid out general funds, and I think for good reason. The benefits paid out are generally related to contributions paid in, in a form more similar to pensions than to poverty based welfare.

Wic, Food stamps and to some extent Medicaid all that is really needed is a low income and a child. A child in a house that is receiving either WIC or food stamps AUTOMATICALLY qualifies for medicaid.

To Qualify for unemployment, you need to be laid off or fired for some reason that is not your own doing. Hitting your boss, violating company policy, not showing for work, or just plain quitting for any reason means you do not get Unemployment benefits.

Polonius wrote:
By that argument, a federal employees salary is welfare, as it's a benefit imposed and administered by the state.

I've seen that argument made before. I don't think its reasonable because imposition is voluntarily assumed by an employee. Employers do not voluntarily assume imposition of payroll taxes.

Polonius wrote:
I think most people separate the social welfare paid out of payroll taxes (social security, medicare, and UI) from Welfare paid out general funds, and I think for good reason. The benefits paid out are generally related to contributions paid in, in a form more similar to pensions than to poverty based welfare.

Medicaid, SSI, and TANF are are all paid out of payroll taxes and are all open to anyone meeting certain criteria for economic hardship.

That's why I said generally. Clearly government benefits, outside of salary and vested pensions are a form of social welfare, but in both the public view and in terms of qualifications there are profound differences.

You seem really fixated on this, and I'm not sure why. Do you really not see a difference between vested benefits and completely open benefits?

So how does Arizona think this kind of legislation is going to help their state? Seems like Arizona is going to get sued throughout, boycotts will continue to pile up, and the cost to get illegals in the bloated legal system and transporting them back to their country of origin all seems counter-productive as well. Not to mention the potential and likely civil unrest that you're basically asking for. Or the hit you take from a reputation standpoint and that Arizona needs tourism. My vague math just doesn't seem to add up well for AZ then again thats the same state in which the governor that voted against MLK day also saw a UFO. Then there's all the other recent malarkey they've gotten themselves into with regulating accents, banning ethnic studies, etc.

Just seems like something thats going to help Jan Brewer get reelected than actually getting something done considering the law seems unconstitutional. Kinda like how infamous Arizonan John McCain flip-flopped his position on MLK day - at first he was opposed to its celebration but then realized it would've been political suicide to continue that course so he later supported it IIRC. Whatever gets those poll numbers up seems to be their goal which is understandable as well as despicable.

One, it focusses the press and the Fed on a problem that has been largely ignored.
Two, It reflects what the majority of the legal voters in the state think/believe/want.

They probably understand the hurdles in place and are willing to face them head on and not cower and shy away from them.

The Mexican Government is protesting policy in this country. The Mexican President is buying time on American radio and TV to talk to "his people".
Obama was actually apologising to the president of Mexico on the White House Lawn.

Face it, Mexico is acting like they are being attacked with these laws. And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country. To them the problem isn't people illegally crossing the border. For all appearences they seem to feel the problem is the border itself.

The problem is that this law would be an illegal act, just like crossing the border.

Polonius wrote:
You seem really fixated on this, and I'm not sure why. Do you really not see a difference between vested benefits and completely open benefits?

On a purely technical level, of course I do. But with regard to the moral impetus that seemed to be at the heart of Fateweaver's position, no, I don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
Face it, Mexico is acting like they are being attacked with these laws

Why is that important?

helgrenze wrote:
And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country.

As far as I know it isn't illegal for foreign governments to broadcast political messages in the United States. Moreover, by taking offense to Mexican actions with respect to Arizona's legislative decisions you are allowing yourself to be influenced by a foreign government.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
You seem really fixated on this, and I'm not sure why. Do you really not see a difference between vested benefits and completely open benefits?

On a purely technical level, of course I do. But with regard to the moral impetus that seemed to be at the heart of Fateweaver's position, no, I don't.

Well, disagreeing with most of his points is certainly a step towards wisdom. I still think there is a tangible moral difference. There are some arguments to be made that payroll taxes lower wages, which means that those programs are actually funded by employee contributions. A lot of our tax and support structures are still built on Victorian era morality (The capital gains tax is one of the most notable examples), and I think this is one of them. UI is a protection for workers who through no fault, lost their jobs. WIC and Food stamps are simply general relief for the impoverished. Likewise, SSI help those either retired or disabled.

Of course, what FW misses is that by paying other taxes, he was supporting the welfare system that he may have qualified for. Keep in mind that most of those programs have both income and wealth ceilings. But if you paid taxes, and then ended up broke, why not take the stuff offered? Social welfare is there just like police or fire: to help people when they need it.