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.

djones520 wrote:

sebster wrote:

djones520 wrote:@ Sebster: It's not border control. It's emergency room costs, that the Illegals treat as a primary care clinic, or education costs from having to put all their kids in school, or penal system costs from laws that they end up breaking.

All of those draw from the states coffers, not the actual cost of securing the border its self.

You're not hearing me. There is more to the Arizona budget than healthcare and the costs of illegal aliens (either their drain on the system, or the cost of keeping them out). There would still be expenditure on parks and gardens, yeah? All those kinds of piddly things, that are nice to have, but really need to be cut before you start telling people their lifesaving surgery didn't make the final budget.

Your missing the point that the State of Arizone is spending nearly 3 billion on things it wouldn't have to if the Federal Government would get it's act straight.

Your also missing the point that there is more then a billion dollar deficit in their budget already. Cuts are being made across the board. The State is already spending 1.1 billion less then it did last year. They could be spending 3 times less if the Illegal issue was under control.

The illegal issue could be under control if the border situation was treated as an endemic cultural issue and not a criminal one too, we can't all get what we want and Arizonas lovely set of shiny new laws that they want to "fix the problem with" are a hell of a lot more expensive to enforce then a simple amnesty and registration system that would put those outside the system in it. It's not like Arizonas going to have much of an economy without the illegals anyway, about the best it's good for these days is cheap farm and mine labor and a little bit of tourism, the formers not gonna be too cost effective without "guest workers" and the ladders not gonna float you in a recession.

@ Shuma: So you think we should reward criminals, because it's "cheaper"?

djones520 wrote:@ Shuma: So you think we should reward criminals, because it's "cheaper"?

If you change the only law that makes them criminals then they aren't criminals any more, are they? I don't give a gak about you're little moral complex concerning brown people and the supremacy of the natural born American, there s a clear and reasonable path to fixing the immigration problem that would also serve to reduce crime, increase tax revenue, enable greater transparency, and reduce the frequency of illegals being used for undocumented economic activities, thats to naturalize them. Or hell, at the very least allow them to register without expulsion and create a guest worker program that they can live and work under with the eventual aim of naturalization.

I mean, really, your only major economies are ones that NEED cheap labor, and I don't think you're willing to pick oranges or work the mines quite cheap enough to compete with brazil or china.

Ok... well I'm not going to reply to you any longer, because we just crossed the line were it's going to get ugly.

djones520 wrote:Ok... well I'm not going to reply to you any longer, because we just crossed the line were it's going to get ugly.

"formers and ladders" lol. I love the little holes in purported intelligent people's brains.

djones520 wrote:Ok... well I'm not going to reply to you any longer, because we just crossed the line were it's going to get ugly.

You didn't respond to my point that the Az budget consists of more than border control and healthcare.

ShumaGorath wrote:

djones520 wrote:@ Shuma: So you think we should reward criminals, because it's "cheaper"?

If you change the only law that makes them criminals then they aren't criminals any more, are they? I don't give a gak about you're little moral complex concerning brown people and the supremacy of the natural born American, there s a clear and reasonable path to fixing the immigration problem that would also serve to reduce crime, increase tax revenue, enable greater transparency, and reduce the frequency of illegals being used for undocumented economic activities, thats to naturalize them. Or hell, at the very least allow them to register without expulsion and create a guest worker program that they can live and work under with the eventual aim of naturalization.

I mean, really, your only major economies are ones that NEED cheap labor, and I don't think you're willing to pick oranges or work the mines quite cheap enough to compete with brazil or china.

People who disagree with Shuma are obviously all bigots. Thank you, every time you post you make me laugh. I CANNOT CONTROL MY IMPULSE TO INSULT OTHERS.

sebster wrote:

djones520 wrote:Ok... well I'm not going to reply to you any longer, because we just crossed the line were it's going to get ugly.

You didn't respond to my point that the Az budget consists of more than border control and healthcare.

Yes I did. You pointed out that they can make cuts to more then just those items, and I pointed out how they have made cuts to 1.1 billion across the entire budget, and they are still coming up short.

I don't know what answer you want, but I guess you could write the Arizona legislature and work with them on figuring this out.

Here is the 2011 Arizona budget if you wanted to review it.

http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/enactedbudgetproposal040910.pdf

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

djones520 wrote:@ Shuma: So you think we should reward criminals, because it's "cheaper"?

If you change the only law that makes them criminals then they aren't criminals any more, are they? I don't give a gak about you're little moral complex concerning brown people and the supremacy of the natural born American, there s a clear and reasonable path to fixing the immigration problem that would also serve to reduce crime, increase tax revenue, enable greater transparency, and reduce the frequency of illegals being used for undocumented economic activities, thats to naturalize them. Or hell, at the very least allow them to register without expulsion and create a guest worker program that they can live and work under with the eventual aim of naturalization.

I mean, really, your only major economies are ones that NEED cheap labor, and I don't think you're willing to pick oranges or work the mines quite cheap enough to compete with brazil or china.

People who disagree with Shuma are obviously all bigots. Thank you, every time you post you make me laugh. Idiot.

Huh, I thought it was just me. Well I am one of many bigots then... lol

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

djones520 wrote:@ Shuma: So you think we should reward criminals, because it's "cheaper"?

If you change the only law that makes them criminals then they aren't criminals any more, are they? I don't give a gak about you're little moral complex concerning brown people and the supremacy of the natural born American, there s a clear and reasonable path to fixing the immigration problem that would also serve to reduce crime, increase tax revenue, enable greater transparency, and reduce the frequency of illegals being used for undocumented economic activities, thats to naturalize them. Or hell, at the very least allow them to register without expulsion and create a guest worker program that they can live and work under with the eventual aim of naturalization.

I mean, really, your only major economies are ones that NEED cheap labor, and I don't think you're willing to pick oranges or work the mines quite cheap enough to compete with brazil or china.

People who disagree with Shuma are obviously all bigots. Thank you, every time you post you make me laugh. Idiot.

No, just a few .

SlaveToDorkness wrote:"formers and ladders" lol. I love the little holes in purported intelligent people's brains.

I spelled both those words right!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

djones520 wrote:@ Shuma: So you think we should reward criminals, because it's "cheaper"?

If you change the only law that makes them criminals then they aren't criminals any more, are they? I don't give a gak about you're little moral complex concerning brown people and the supremacy of the natural born American, there s a clear and reasonable path to fixing the immigration problem that would also serve to reduce crime, increase tax revenue, enable greater transparency, and reduce the frequency of illegals being used for undocumented economic activities, thats to naturalize them. Or hell, at the very least allow them to register without expulsion and create a guest worker program that they can live and work under with the eventual aim of naturalization.

I mean, really, your only major economies are ones that NEED cheap labor, and I don't think you're willing to pick oranges or work the mines quite cheap enough to compete with brazil or china.

People who disagree with Shuma are obviously all bigots. Thank you, every time you post you make me laugh. Idiot.

Huh, I thought it was just me. Well I am one of many bigots then... lol

Oh god I'm surrounded by bigots! They have infiltrated every layer of society!

ShumaGorath wrote:

I spelled both those words right!

Yeah, spelling is one thing and proper use is another.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I spelled both those words right!

Yeah, spelling is one thing and proper use is another.

But the former climbs the ladder, thats how he gets to the newer event!

djones520 wrote:Yes I did. You pointed out that they can make cuts to more then just those items, and I pointed out how they have made cuts to 1.1 billion across the entire budget, and they are still coming up short.

I responded to that. It was the last post on the previous page, so you might have missed it.

I don't know what answer you want, but I guess you could write the Arizona legislature and work with them on figuring this out.

For you to recognise that health care cuts and border control are not directly correlated items.

sebster wrote:

djones520 wrote:Yes I did. You pointed out that they can make cuts to more then just those items, and I pointed out how they have made cuts to 1.1 billion across the entire budget, and they are still coming up short.

I responded to that. It was the last post on the previous page, so you might have missed it.

I don't know what answer you want, but I guess you could write the Arizona legislature and work with them on figuring this out.

For you to recognise that health care cuts and border control are not directly correlated items.

But they are. The money that pays for it all comes from the same pot. When one thing is taking more out of that pot, there is less for other things.

Health Care and Border Control aren't the only things drawing money from the money pot. I think that is sebster's point. Which you are repeatedly missing...or something?

As a follow up to my rather ill-advised statement, I feel the need to disagree on a more personal and substantive ground.

Legalizing undocumented immigrants insults my sense of fair play. I spent several years in Europe and have several friends who were very educated and wanted very badly to move to the United States. They were denied visas. Guess what? They played by the rules and didn't come. Two of these friends were living Croatia at the height of the war. I bristle at the fact that those who follow the rules are left out in the cold while those that don't (because whether you agree with the law or not, it IS breaking the law) get screwed.

I like to think of illegal immigration laws as I think of the marijuana laws here in the US. Do they really hurt that many people? Probably not. Is it still illegal? You betcha. That's why I don't smoke pot. It has nothing to do with skin color or stealing jobs or whatever. I simply can't stand rewarding people who break the law.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Health Care and Border Control aren't the only things drawing money from the money pot. I think that is sebster's point. Which you are repeatedly missing...or something?

Not at all. I'm just saying the biggest hand in the pot could be easily fixed if people would stop playing political games about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:As a follow up to my rather ill-advised statement, I feel the need to disagree on a more personal and substantive ground.

Legalizing undocumented immigrants insults my sense of fair play. I spent several years in Europe and have several friends who were very educated and wanted very badly to move to the United States. They were denied visas. Guess what? They played by the rules and didn't come. Two of these friends were living Croatia at the height of the war. I bristle at the fact that those who follow the rules are left out in the cold while those that don't (because whether you agree with the law or not, it IS breaking the law) get screwed.

I like to think of illegal immigration laws as I think of the marijuana laws here in the US. Do they really hurt that many people? Probably not. Is it still illegal? You betcha. That's why I don't smoke pot. It has nothing to do with skin color or stealing jobs or whatever. I simply can't stand rewarding people who break the law.

Shut up you racist.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:As a follow up to my rather ill-advised statement, I feel the need to disagree on a more personal and substantive ground.

Legalizing undocumented immigrants insults my sense of fair play. I spent several years in Europe and have several friends who were very educated and wanted very badly to move to the United States. They were denied visas. Guess what? They played by the rules and didn't come. Two of these friends were living Croatia at the height of the war. I bristle at the fact that those who follow the rules are left out in the cold while those that don't (because whether you agree with the law or not, it IS breaking the law) get screwed.

I like to think of illegal immigration laws as I think of the marijuana laws here in the US. Do they really hurt that many people? Probably not. Is it still illegal? You betcha. That's why I don't smoke pot. It has nothing to do with skin color or stealing jobs or whatever. I simply can't stand rewarding people who break the law.

Your post is contradictory. You say that legalizing undocumented immigrants insults your sense of "fair play" but then say that the reason you are against it is becuase it is illegal (like marijuana). So which is it?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:As a follow up to my rather ill-advised statement, I feel the need to disagree on a more personal and substantive ground.

Legalizing undocumented immigrants insults my sense of fair play. I spent several years in Europe and have several friends who were very educated and wanted very badly to move to the United States. They were denied visas. Guess what? They played by the rules and didn't come. Two of these friends were living Croatia at the height of the war. I bristle at the fact that those who follow the rules are left out in the cold while those that don't (because whether you agree with the law or not, it IS breaking the law) get screwed.

I like to think of illegal immigration laws as I think of the marijuana laws here in the US. Do they really hurt that many people? Probably not. Is it still illegal? You betcha. That's why I don't smoke pot. It has nothing to do with skin color or stealing jobs or whatever. I simply can't stand rewarding people who break the law.

The illegal immigration laws adversely and directly effect the lives of tens of millions in America, they have resulted in one of the largest networks of underground slavery in history, and are a significant aid to local and foreign criminal elements as well as the drug trade. They hurt a hell of a lot of people and sentiments about "fair play" are exactly why that isn't changing. Maximizing enforcement hasn't and will continue to not do anything to directly and adversely effect the illegal population within the country and in the meantime they are still here.

Bristle at it all you want, but this is a case where biting the bullet would be substantially less painful then holding onto a conflicting moral standard concerning an outdated set of laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Health Care and Border Control aren't the only things drawing money from the money pot. I think that is sebster's point. Which you are repeatedly missing...or something?

Not at all. I'm just saying the biggest hand in the pot could be easily fixed if people would stop playing political games about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:As a follow up to my rather ill-advised statement, I feel the need to disagree on a more personal and substantive ground.

Legalizing undocumented immigrants insults my sense of fair play. I spent several years in Europe and have several friends who were very educated and wanted very badly to move to the United States. They were denied visas. Guess what? They played by the rules and didn't come. Two of these friends were living Croatia at the height of the war. I bristle at the fact that those who follow the rules are left out in the cold while those that don't (because whether you agree with the law or not, it IS breaking the law) get screwed.

I like to think of illegal immigration laws as I think of the marijuana laws here in the US. Do they really hurt that many people? Probably not. Is it still illegal? You betcha. That's why I don't smoke pot. It has nothing to do with skin color or stealing jobs or whatever. I simply can't stand rewarding people who break the law.

Shut up you racist.

Not him, just you. Well, you and fateweaver, but I don't think he can see this post anwyay. Or is the subject still making you too angry to discuss.

djones520 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Health Care and Border Control aren't the only things drawing money from the money pot. I think that is sebster's point. Which you are repeatedly missing...or something?

Not at all. I'm just saying the biggest hand in the pot could be easily fixed if people would stop playing political games about it.

The same principle could be applied to poverty, global warming and religion. Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that this budget cut could have come from many other areas before people were refused treatment that would save their lives.

EDIT: Exactly how much money is expected to be saved by refusing treatment to this many people?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Health Care and Border Control aren't the only things drawing money from the money pot. I think that is sebster's point. Which you are repeatedly missing...or something?

Not at all. I'm just saying the biggest hand in the pot could be easily fixed if people would stop playing political games about it.

The same principle could be applied to poverty, global warming and religion. Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that this budget cut could have come from many other areas before people were refused treatment that would save their lives.

It also doesn't help that he's proposing an impossibility. You could fix the budget by finding gold in 'dem 'dere hills too, but it's not gonna fething happen no matter how much you dig.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Health Care and Border Control aren't the only things drawing money from the money pot. I think that is sebster's point. Which you are repeatedly missing...or something?

Not at all. I'm just saying the biggest hand in the pot could be easily fixed if people would stop playing political games about it.

The same principle could be applied to poverty, global warming and religion. Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that this budget cut could have come from many other areas before people were refused treatment that would save their lives.

It also doesn't help that he's proposing an impossibility. You could fix the budget by finding gold in 'dem 'dere hills too, but it's not gonna fething happen no matter how much you dig.

Just shut ur darn mouth and keep diggin'!

djones520 wrote:
Not at all. I'm just saying the biggest hand in the pot could be easily fixed if people would stop playing political games about it.

People play political games by their nature, even (and often especially) the ones that don't believe that they do. You're basically talking about reinventing the human race, and that's not going to happen.

This has nothing to do with moral standards. It has everything to do with respecting the law.

I have respect for the law and those the respect the law. My friends went through legal channels and were rejected and they respected that. They could have come to the US on a visitor's visa and simply have never left, but they didn't because that would be illegal.

The people already here are here to stay, for better of for worse. I know that. It would be impractical to "round them up" and deport them. What I am proposing is increased enforcement at the borders (if for nothing more than to help combat the drug trade) followed up by an expansion of the number of worker's visas and the like from ALL countries.

The people already here should have an amnesty period in which they can come forward to be properly documented and put onto some path to permanence. If they do not come forward during the amnesty period, then they will be subsequently deported should they be caught.

What is so unfair about that?

I'll have to remember to add a smiley face the next time I insult you shuma

Respect for the law is a moral standard.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:As a follow up to my rather ill-advised statement, I feel the need to disagree on a more personal and substantive ground.

Legalizing undocumented immigrants insults my sense of fair play. I spent several years in Europe and have several friends who were very educated and wanted very badly to move to the United States. They were denied visas. Guess what? They played by the rules and didn't come. Two of these friends were living Croatia at the height of the war. I bristle at the fact that those who follow the rules are left out in the cold while those that don't (because whether you agree with the law or not, it IS breaking the law) get screwed.

I like to think of illegal immigration laws as I think of the marijuana laws here in the US. Do they really hurt that many people? Probably not. Is it still illegal? You betcha. That's why I don't smoke pot. It has nothing to do with skin color or stealing jobs or whatever. I simply can't stand rewarding people who break the law.

Your post is contradictory. You say that legalizing undocumented immigrants insults your sense of "fair play" but then say that the reason you are against it is becuase it is illegal (like marijuana). So which is it?

How is it contradictory? I don't like that those who break the law are allowed to get away with it. Those who respect the law are left out in the cold while those that don't should be welcomed into the country with open arms? In other words, while I don't necessarily believe that the current immigration laws are fair or practical, I don't believe breaking them or ignoring them is a good way to go about proving the point that they are unfair or impractical.

Oh, and how is respecting the law a conflicting moral standard?Underground slavery and the drug trade are issues unto themselves. While it is regretable that illegal immigrants get mixed up in those trades, it does not change the fact that they broke the law to come here. If you disagree with the law, you elect people who are willing to change the law or you join government to bring about that change yourself.

I genuinely am confused here. I don't understand how respect for the law is a conflicting moral standard when attributed to illegal immigration. Just because I don't believe it to be particularly hurtful doesn't mean it's a conflicting standard.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I genuinely am confused here. I don't understand how respect for the law is a conflicting moral standard when attributed to illegal immigration. Just because I don't believe it to be particularly hurtful doesn't mean it's a conflicting standard.

That's not what I said.

You said that this wasn't about moral standards, but respect for the law. I pointed out that respect for the law is a moral standard, which indicates that this is, at least in part, a moral issue.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
How is it contradictory? I don't like that those who break the law are allowed to get away with it. Those who respect the law are left out in the cold while those that don't should be welcomed into the country with open arms? In other words, while I don't necessarily believe that the current immigration laws are fair or practical, I don't believe breaking them or ignoring them is a good way to go about proving the point that they are unfair or impractical.

Fair enough, I didn't know you were reffering to the law when you said fair play.

dogma wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I genuinely am confused here. I don't understand how respect for the law is a conflicting moral standard when attributed to illegal immigration. Just because I don't believe it to be particularly hurtful doesn't mean it's a conflicting standard.

That's not what I said.

You said that this wasn't about moral standards, but respect for the law. I pointed out that respect for the law is a moral standard, which indicates that this is, at least in part, a moral issue.

sorry, wasn't clear in my last post. I was refering to Shuma's post about conflicting moral standards.