Hello Socialism!

[grampster]

See, Rabbi's comments...they seem to point out the problem as I perceive it.  I've been a "criminal" many times in my life according to "law".    What are the terms used about maleafactorism?  Malum in se and malum prohibita?  (Forgive my phonetic latin spelling.)  Some things are just, well, wrong; wrong on its face.   And other activities are proscribed to be wrong and in fact the proscription sort of goes away at times or is overlooked.

Now I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not somehow wrong.  Certainly we can recount a myriad of reasons why it is.  But for me the question is NOT whether it's wrong, but rather what in the world are we going to do about it and still be able to say that whatever that course of action was, it was the proper thing to do.  We need to start thinking about how we can turn this problem into an advantage.

To keep this thread as near the topic as possible, I'd say that the socialists would USE the immigrants to create bigger government and more control.  Capitalists would find a way to intigrate the immigrants in order make their businesses run better.  Each in its way can be both good or evil.  (I've often felt that if one had a choice it's better to be at the mercy of robber barons than the government as one can more eaily avoid the barons.  Don't pay your taxes and see what happens.  You do not have shop at Wally World.)

[Perd Hapley]

By your definition of "criminal" probably everyone on this board is a criminal.  Such a definition ceases to have any meaning other than as a rhetorical tool.

Yes, I was really hoping I could whip you all into a frenzy.

I looked at several definitions of "criminal" on online dictionaries, and all were far less forgiving than I - they all defined criminal as "one who has broken the law" or "one who has committed a crime," or some such.  Obviously, this is a literal definition, not reflected in common usage.  

My definition involves a repeated, willful violation of law, which I honestly think is how the term is usually applied.  I don't believe I meet that definition, nor do I suppose that most APS'ers do.  I have broken speed limits in the past, but I generally try to keep my vehicle at a legal speed.  Keeps my insurance costs down.  I have broken the law in the past, but do not continue to do so willfully and repeatedly.  Or perhaps it is more correct to say that we apply the term to those who live a lifestyle of crime.  Again, this fits very well with those who come over once and work illegally for several years, or those who cross over repeatedly to work.

Those who come here illegally, even with the best of intentions, become criminals by their choice, and it is silly for you to pretend that I am slurring them.

To keep this thread as near the topic as possible

Way too late for that.  Mercedesrules and I derailed it long ago, but I found his ideas about anarchy more interesting than this goofiness that has lately erupted.  Why don't you and Rabbi start your own thread about how illegal immigrants are all great Americans?

[grampster]

Actually I'd rather talk about the efficacy of the Cadbury creme egg as a calming agent for aging men.

[The Rabbi]

Actually I'd rather talk about the efficacy of the Cadbury creme egg as a calming agent for aging men.

Almost anything would be better than a "them furriners are ruining this great country."  I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal.  I am sure that is most of us and even with my pointing it out no one is going to change his practice.  I guess that makes us all "willfull repeating criminals."

On to more productive topics: Grampster, I always thought that as men reached 40+ they preferred dark chocolate to milk chocolate.  I know my tastes have changed in that direction.

[280plus]

Some of you may know about my affiliation with the CT state Archeologist's office. I manned a table for them a couple years back and Met an elder of the "Western" Mohegan tribe of CT. In our conversation he made a comment that has remained in my head ever since. "We are ALL immigrants to this country." That applies even to the first "native" tribes. Not all of us got here by means of some paperwork and "proper channels". What gives anyone the right to exclude anyone else from this country? THis country is made UP of the type of stock that you now vilify. The kind that is willing to face hardship and danger in hopes of giving their families a better life.

How did this thread drift from Taxachussett's new Med Insurance bill to IE's anyways? I read the whole thing and still don't understand where the drift began.

[grampster]

Reb,

Milk chocolate rules.  Especially if it surrounds caramel.  If you're just a tad over 40 you are still a bit wet behind the ears and subject to wild swings of behaviour.  Women call it Hot Flashes.    I do have Sansbelt stock.

280,
It started out about socialism and IE problem smacks a bit about that.  The conventional wisdom seem to purport that large groups of newbies can be plucked politically to support a political viewpoint that leans toward socialist statism.  My contraryism wonders if the reverse might be true.  Most of those folks are running away from class warfare and the socialist state.

Fistful,
c'mon, we're not being "goofy" and we're not attempting to paint everyone with the same brush which to a degree you appear to be doing; they are all lawbreakers.  I'd rather prefer to look at the bigger picture.    I also really, really did overlook the fact that you called me a fool, not once but twice.   I respect your views, sir.  I enjoy rambling on about what I think about from time to time.  I also enjoy reading your opinions and thoughts.  (As a side comment, I am not one for backing every durn thing I say by running to a statistical journal or post supporting threads.)

  I rather like to just say what's on my mind.   Sometime's the obvious is not quite as clear as it should be and conversation helps sort it out better than dogma.  I'd rather believe it's thinking out loud and looking for solutions and other viewpoints.  I don't think that's foolish or goofy.  I don't really think you do either.

[Perd Hapley]

 "them furriners are ruining this great country."  I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal.  I am sure that is most of us and even with my pointing it out no one is going to change his practice.  I guess that makes us all "willfull repeating criminals."

It's the illegals, actually, not the furriners.  Then again, they are only one problem.  I wonder where you're getting this sales tax bit.  Never heard that one before, so the willfull part is out.  Never thought about it before.  Do you mean items ordered from within the same state?

[Perd Hapley]

"We are ALL immigrants to this country." That applies even to the first "native" tribes. Not all of us got here by means of some paperwork and "proper channels". What gives anyone the right to exclude anyone else from this country? THis country is made UP of the type of stock that you now vilify. The kind that is willing to face hardship and danger in hopes of giving their families a better life.

How did this thread drift from Taxachussett's new Med Insurance bill to IE's anyways? I read the whole thing and still don't understand where the drift began.

Post 43 is where it drifted to illegal immigration.

Most of the world's population has migrated somewhere at some time, or at least some of their ancestors did.  What gives us the authority (not the right, for nations do not have rights) is that American citizens constituted this country and make its laws.  Citizens have a right to be here, and to decide who can visit us or become citizens.  This is part of the concept of sovereignty with regards to the modern nation-state.  

Perhaps I have not been clear in stating that I am not talking of legal immigrants but of those who do so illegally.  Whether or not they should be called criminals may not much matter.  What is important is that we are clearly not controlling who is crossing our border.  It may be that visas are too difficult to obtain for some people, and if so we should allow more legal immigrants.  Unfortunately, the lazy way to do this, by giving current illegals a pass, only encourages more illegal immigration.  

Hoping everyone else is as tired of this discussion as I am,
fistful

[280plus]

Ah yes, post #43

Hoping everyone else is as tired of this discussion as I am,

Waddaya mean? I was just gettin' going...  

Well I just know this sure ain't the first wave of immigrants legal or otherwise to hit these shores. And I agree with Grampster, I believe the vast majority of those coming here are doing so to escape the situations you fear they will cause in this country.

Unfortunately, the lazy way to do this, by giving current illegals a pass, only encourages more illegal immigration.

Ah, but if  laws were changed to make it much easier to immigrate legally I believe it will in fact eliminate most IF NOT ALL illegal immigration into this country. If it was easier for them to gain entry, legally, and go to work (AND PAY TAXES AND SOCIAL SECURITY) how many of them would bother to go through things like paying extortion to  mules and crossing the river and desert at great risk. Or living a life below the poverty level because those that hire them would not have to pay them even the minimum wage? As far as those that are here NOW illegally. How DO you propose to round them up and get them back out?

It's the same old story. Make something illegal and the criminals will be more than happy to add it to their black market book of ways to make money. Lot's of money. Do you REALLY want the criminal element to be in charge of who is getting into this country?

Think of all the .gov $  and MANPOWER that would be freed up if we didn't have to worry about keeping millions of people at bay on our borders.
Plus, you worry about terrorists making their way across the border in the same fashion. If people stopped coming across the border in droves illegally then there would be noone for these terrorists to hide in amongst.

FWIW, I lived in San Diego in the mid to late 70's. I could see the Tijuana bullring from my porch and could hear the cheering there every Sunday afternoon. Almost every day the border patrol was pulling illegals out from under bushes, porches and wherever else they could fin to hide throughout my neighborhood. So in my mind, all this talk of illegals crossing the border is nothing new. It was going on long before I got there and continues  to this day. I say it's about time we did something substantial about it. Calling it illegal and persecuting, uh, I mean PROSECUTING these people hasn't seemed to work so far.

Those who have entered legally scoff at the idea. They seem to think the illegals haven't paid the dues necessary to remain in this country legally. They're getting a "free pass". I say they payed a large amount of money to one criminal orgqanization or another, they made the trip into this country knowing full well the great risks that were involved and they managed to survive and for the most part are contributing to this country's well being. I say they've paid their dues. Maybe not the same ones the legals paid but they've still paid dues.

[280plus]

Oh, I want to correct myself. I BELIEVE it was actually the Western PEQUOT tribe not the Mohegans. The Eastern Pequots lived east of a particular river down there and they're the ones with the casino. The Western Pequots lived west of said river and do NOT have a casino. But I believe they're working on it. They were interested in checking ground for burial sites before excavating. I don't know what ever became of all that. Around here the "native" tribes have got the right idea. They're buying all their old lands back. You think you got problems with Mexicans?

[280plus]

One more thing. If you make entering this country to work legally less restrictive then BY ALL MEANS make entering illegally a felony and if you allow all the illegals now present to remain, come forward and become legal then make not coming forward a felony.

[griz]

What gives anyone the right to exclude anyone else from this country?

How far does that go?  Should we stop checking passports when someone gets off the plane?  Or to be more extreme, if a ship full of soldiers started unloading at the pier, would it be immoral to stop them?

[280plus]

Hell, what is there, 11 million supposedly? Charge em all $150 each to become citizens and how much does that add up to? Nice little shot in the arm for the US of A. THEN they can start paying into the system.

Stepping off soapbox for now. No really...

[280plus]

How far does that go?

Not at all. Process them in. Check for disease, check for criminal records. Check what they're bringing in with them. We've done it in the past. Do I need to say Ellis Island? Are the soldiers being friendly?

I gtg but I'll check back later. I'm really interested in what calm rational people have to say about all this.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm really interested in what calm rational people have to say about all this.

It's kind of hard when any rational comments are regarded as "nativism."

[280plus]

Not by me...

When I say rational I think I mean well thought out.

I pose the same question. How are we supposed to both guard our entire border AND round up and expel 11 million people? When, by simply allowing them to come here AND WORK not live off of welfare, the whole problem goes away. I', pretty sure, you tell all the illegals that for $150 they can become citizens and not live in the shadows and more that rougly, just grabbing a number,,,90% of them would line up in a heart beat. By our actions as they are now we are ENCOURAGING all the criminal activity taking place plus paying a pretty penny for it.

Reallly got to go now.

[Perd Hapley]

Who said anything about mass deportation?

[The Rabbi]

 "them furriners are ruining this great country."  I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal.  I am sure that is most of us and even with my pointing it out no one is going to change his practice.  I guess that makes us all "willfull repeating criminals."

It's the illegals, actually, not the furriners.  Then again, they are only one problem.  I wonder where you're getting this sales tax bit.  Never heard that one before, so the willfull part is out.  Never thought about it before.  Do you mean items ordered from within the same state?

http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/usetax/

Tennessee, like other states that impose a sales tax, also taxes the use of property that is brought into the state untaxed when purchased. The purpose of the use tax is not only to raise revenue, but also to protect local merchants, who must collect the sales tax, from unfair competition from out-of-state sellers who do not collect Tennessees sales tax.

I would cite MO's code but the state website stinks and I cant get anything.

[doczinn]

1. Set up a legal way for unskilled workers who apply outside the US to enter and be tracked, then leave after a specified period of time.
2. Specify said workers, as well as anyone currently here illegally, are entirely ineligible for any government benefits or services except police services (on either side) and emergency medical care.
The rest will take care of itself.

[richyoung]

"I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal. "

As you were about the requirement for gold and silver coins in the Constitution, you are, quite simply, wrong.  The Federal government is pre-emptively reserved the right and authority to regulate insterstate commerce, as well as to instutute and run the postal system that delivers such purchases.  That some states, including my own, try to finagle such tax out of you for out-of-state purchases of any kind does not legalize or legitimise it in any way.  I strongly suggest for everyone a thorough reading and study of the Constitution as a whole, particulary since border control is one of the few legitimate duties of hte federal governemnt - a government too busy doing things it should not to do those that it should.

[The Rabbi]

"I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal. "

As you were about the requirement for gold and silver coins in the Constitution, you are, quite simply, wrong.  The Federal government is pre-emptively reserved the right and authority to regulate insterstate commerce, as well as to instutute and run the postal system that delivers such purchases.  That some states, including my own, try to finagle such tax out of you for out-of-state purchases of any kind does not legalize or legitimise it in any way.  I strongly suggest for everyone a thorough reading and study of the Constitution as a whole, particulary since border control is one of the few legitimate duties of hte federal governemnt - a government too busy doing things it should not to do those that it should.

You could always pay for your sales tax due with your Krugerrands, legal currency in--oops, no they aren't.
It must be great to make yourself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says, regardless of Supreme Court decisions and other laws.

[richyoung]

"You could always pay for your sales tax due with your Krugerrands, legal currency in--oops, no they aren't.
It must be great to make yourself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says, regardless of Supreme Court decisions and other laws."

Still haven't read it for yourself, I see.  Don't take mine, (or especially any 5 out of 9 Supreme's) word for it - READ IT YOURSELF - and if you can find anything in the Constitution itself that points out ANY misstatement of fact, I will be happy to genuflect to your superior intellect.  Laws passed by a legislature, executive orders CAN NOT overturn a Constitutional mandate - only an amendmant can.  As to Supreme Court decisions, care to guess how many times they have overtuened themselves?  They aren't infallible - its OUR job to vigorously defend the Constituion - and that's not possible unless you know exactly what it says and means - otherwise you don't know when its being violated.

[richyoung]

...and technically, Krugerands are more "legal" as currency than Federal Reserve notes - the Constitution requires that gold and silver coin ONLY be legal money - no requirement that they be minted here - as I've already shown, the Spanish "peice of eight" was the original "dollar".

[The Rabbi]

"You could always pay for your sales tax due with your Krugerrands, legal currency in--oops, no they aren't.
It must be great to make yourself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says, regardless of Supreme Court decisions and other laws."

Still haven't read it for yourself, I see.  Don't take mine, (or especially any 5 out of 9 Supreme's) word for it - READ IT YOURSELF - and if you can find anything in the Constitution itself that points out ANY misstatement of fact, I will be happy to genuflect to your superior intellect.  Laws passed by a legislature, executive orders CAN NOT overturn a Constitutional mandate - only an amendmant can.  As to Supreme Court decisions, care to guess how many times they have overtuened themselves?  They aren't infallible - its OUR job to vigorously defend the Constituion - and that's not possible unless you know exactly what it says and means - otherwise you don't know when its being violated.

Please post your qualification in Constitutional scholarship, listing how many peer-reviewed journals you have been published in.  Then we can talk.

[richyoung]

"Please post your qualification in Constitutional scholarship,..."

I'm a citizen of the United States, and I can read.  The Constitution wasn't meant to be, nor is it, an esoteric document to be interpreted only by scholars and lawyers.  Its the fundamental compact between American citizens and their government, as well as being the supreme law of the land.  If one is going to exercise the franchise, it behooves one to intimately know his rights and obligations under that compact, as well as the rights, duties, and limitations that compact foists on the government.  Only then can  one intelligently select representatives to that government, evaluate their performance, or know when said government has over-reached.


" listing how many peer-reviewed journals you have been published in.  Then we can talk."

That number would be zero.  Its not my job to write constitutional articles - my job is to sysadmin and operate military simulations to train artillery officers, NCOs, and battle staffs.  You can bet your bippy I READ a lot of those articles, though,...as should all.


BTW, still waiting for any factual error or misstatement to be pointed out.  And how many constitutional articles have YOU published?