How To Be A Patriotic American
An immigrant friend of mine just got promoted to Legal Resident status which is, as I understand it, the last signpost on the road to full-fledged citizenship in our dying republic. Welcome! For his benefit, and that of any other Legal Residents who chance to read this, I offer the following list of helpful tips on fitting in with the citizenry of your new homeland:
- Decorate your house and augment your wardrobe so that you’re always within sight of the Stars and Stripes. Patriotic Americans always surround themselves with plenty of flags, in case they forget what country they live in and need a quick reminder. An American-flag belt buckle the size of a dinner plate is a tasteful and stylish way to do this.
- Corollary: If you become a citizen, and thus get the right to vote, remember that Patriotic Americans only ever vote for candidates who wear American-flag lapel pins whenever they’re photographed in public.
- Patriotic Americans show faith in the strength of their currency. Whenever you hear someone discuss the price of consumer items in foreign countries (e.g, “This DVD costs 10 pounds in
- When visiting foreign countries, Patriotic Americans remember that they represent not just themselves, but their countrymen as well. Take personal responsibility for having won World War Two, especially around Europeans who always appreciate it when drunk Yank tourists say “If it weren’t for us, you’d all be BLEARGH speaking German right now.”
- Corollary: don’t try this in
- Or
- Patriotic Americans know that sticking a magnetic yellow ribbon on the back of their car makes life better for Our Troops.
- Patriotic Americans know that countries are like houses – once you come in, the polite thing to do is shut the door behind you. And since nobody comes in through
posted by Jennifer Abel at 10:19 PM
84 Comments:
Wow,
This is so stupid and cliché. It lacks even the most basic understanding of the issues of immigration reform. A new low has been reached.
"Corollary: don’t try this in Germany."
Actually, it works fine in Germany, although you may have to point out that it is because the U.S. (and the U.S. alone and, by extension, you personally) won World War II that the German you're talking to learned to speak English.
Of course, that doesn't explain the other foreign languages he speaks and you don't, but you can't have everything.
"Cliché?" Why don't you learn to speak AMERICAN, you cheese-eating surrender monkey.
I'd say Jennifer understands the issues surrounding immigration reform perfectly, and thus addresses the topic with all the seriousness and respect that it deserves.
It's an unfair characterization of what the debate is all about. Immigration reform has nothing to do with keeping people out. It has everything to do with welcoming people in, just in an orderly, organized way. It also looks to hold those people and entities who abuse an extort undocumented residents accountable. Immigration reform is being characterized as some sort of racist, bigoted action when that could not be farther from the truth. This article also combines Patriotic Americans with Stupid Americans. While I concede that some overlap does exist, That's the exception not the rule.
1) It's funny how "welcoming people in, just in an orderly, organized way" seems to always result in precisely "keeping people out."
2) There are already laws on the books against extortion, torture, etc.
2b) If it weren't for our perceived "need" to keep out anyone without the proper papers, unscrupulous employers wouldn't have much leverage with which to abuse undocumented workers.
3) I agree it's possible to want to clamp down on immigration without being bigoted. However, once one actually looks at the data (which overwhelmingly shows that immigrants -- yes, even unskilled, Spanish-speaking ones -- are a net economic gain for this country), one starts running out of excuses for supporting a clampdown. You claim that it couldn't be "farther from the truth" that the immigration "reform" movement is motivated by racism and bigotry, but from where I stand, I'm sure seeing a lot of duck-like quacking.
4) "Patriotic Americans," in this article, clearly refers to those people who advertise themselves as "patriotic," a word which (sadly) now means pretty much exactly the same thing as "jingoistic." The overlap between those Americans and "Stupid Americans" closely approaches 1:1.
I'm not opposed to people who smoke marijuana. I'm just opposed to people who illegally smoke marijuana.
In response to Jake's numbered comments.
1.) I have no idea what you mean so I'll try to clarify what I meant. Much like a FREE concert in a large stadium, it makes much more sense to have people enter in an organized, safe way rather then having people entering through every door, window, air duct, vent, sewage pipe etc. There are many advantages of order over chaos.
2.) Right, most of Immigration Reform is just a request to enforce laws that ALREADY exist.
2.b) Don't you have a social security number so the Federal Government can tax your income? Why should some 'citizens' be exempt from that? Can I get rid of mine then?
3.)Again, No one wants to 'clamp down' or stop, or even slow down immigration, everyone knows that this country exists BECAUSE of immigration. It just needs to be reworked or... reformed a little to reflect a changing world.
4.) Basically that's just belittling someone who's beliefs you don't share.
In response to Jennifer,
This is classic mischaracterization.
Folks involved with Immigration Reform understand that 'People are not illegal' Unfortunately, because basic, reasonable laws are not enforced, millions of people in this country are abused, and exploited at the same time, consuming resources that may be grossly inadequate because of inaccurate demographic information.
This mischaracterization of the immigration reform movement is akin to the radical pro-life people calling pro-choice people 'babykillers'.
Goldengod, when my ancestors emigrated from Europe, here's what they had to do:
1. Show up at Ellis Island.
2. pass a TB test.
And that was it. If our modern system were simply a more updated version of that, making sure that people didn't have HIV or antibiotic-resistant TB, and doing a quick background check to ensure they're not wanted murderers or something, that would be fine. Instead, our modern convoluted system ensures that unless you're wealthy, a PhD scientist or one of the abysmally few people who can qualify for refugee/asylum status, it's damned near impossible to get in, especially if you're from a country like Mexico which has a large number of wannabe Americans in it.
If modern standards applied when my ancestors tried to come here, they never would've been allowed in. And I will not be so hypocritical as to say "Now that I'm here, I'll shut the door behind me."
Don't you have a social security number so the Federal Government can tax your income? Why should some 'citizens' be exempt from that? Can I get rid of mine then
Actually, I'm hoping there's a couple people out there dumping a whole bunch into FICA for me, using my SSN. I'm only aware of one use in TX, which popped up on a DOD screen once.
If modern standards applied when my ancestors tried to come here, they never would've been allowed in.
I don't know about that, but key point in fairness to GG is that your ancestors followed the rules of the day. The fact that the rules of today don't match those is somewhat secondary.
For instance, today I would not be able to build the same farmhouse, barn, and grainery that my great grandfather built. However, he also had the advantage of free land, which I unfortunately lack. It's a comparision which isn't as valid as it appears when examined.
1.) Your concert analogy is silly, since the whole point of restricting border crossings is plainly not to protect immigrants, but to make it easier for us to stop most of them from getting in.
But assuming you're not being disingenuous, you must also be in favor of building a wall along the California-Nevada border, right? After all, that desert is dangerous too, and we'd hate to have those poor ignorant Californians dying in the desert in their attempts to reach Nevada. How do you think Californians manage to reach Nevada alive without a border patrol?
2.) Yes, except that while I'd like the laws against extortion and fraud to be enforced, you'd apparently rather the laws against freedom of association and freedom of movement be enforced.
2.b) You're ignoring the fact that most undocumented immigrants pay taxes (unless you'd like to argue that alien status somehow magically makes you immune to sales tax), and don't have Social Security numbers, so can't ever receive any payouts from that system.
3.) Have you ever met any of your fellow-travellers? Besides, the current immigration regime is far too restrictive as it stands. It needs to be opened wider, not more effectively enforced. I'm not impressed by calls to enforce unfair laws.
4.) Some people, frankly, desperately need to be belittled. Social sanction is a relatively mild way of expressing disapproval of jingoistic, bigoted attitudes, don't you think?
I don't know about that, but key point in fairness to GG is that your ancestors followed the rules of the day. The fact that the rules of today don't match those is somewhat secondary. For instance, today I would not be able to build the same farmhouse, barn, and grainery that my great grandfather built.
And if I ignored these legal changes and criticized you for being a lazy bum who refuses to build a farmhouse, barn and grainary as your great-grandfather did, then I'd have a lot in common with modern Patriotic Americans who say "My grandparents obeyed the law when they came here, so modern immigrants should obey the law as well."
And if I ignored these legal changes and criticized you for being a lazy bum who refuses to build a farmhouse, barn and grainary as your great-grandfather did, then I'd have a lot in common with modern Patriotic Americans who say "My grandparents obeyed the law when they came here, so modern immigrants should obey the law as well."
No. I couldn't build the farmstead now due to zoning laws, codes, etc, not to mention that I don't have a land grant to do it with. To criticize me for failing to break the law would be essentially what you are doing if you were to call me lazy.
I don't understand your equivalence with your quote, on the one hand I'd be following the law by not doing something, but you're equating criticizing me for following the law as the same as criticizing others for breaking it.
Conversely, if you take the first statement "ignore the legal changes", the quote about following the law becomes somewhat nonsensical. I don't see a conflict in "I followed the law, you should too, even though the law has now changed."
When I got my driver's license, I followed the law as to how to do it. My kids have a very different process, due to time passing and being in a different State. However, they follow the law here and now. It would be rather ignorant of me to insist that they follow the same process I got my license under, and say that since the law changed they should still be allowed to drive if they met the criteria my license was issued under.
If I then extrapolated that and said that it shouldn't be prosecuted if discovered, I would think I'd be viewed by most as somewhat of an asshole. Somehow this is lost on a lot of people when dealing with immigration, yet they're crystal clear in other areas. I don't know why.
I'm just sayin that GG's position does have some logical merit that is often overlooked.
Or maybe I'm confused. As I said, you lost me equating not breaking the law with breaking the law.
Moose, I'm criticizing you for not doing what your great-grandfather did, while ignoring the fact that the law makes imitating his accomplishments MUCH more difficult now than it was in his time.
"I followed the law [to enter the US], you should too, even though the law has now changed."
This lacks one important element:
"... to the point where it's impossible for you to actually enter the country if you follow it."
This mischaracterization of the immigration reform movement is akin to the radical pro-life people calling pro-choice people 'babykillers'.
Or calling pro life people "Anti abortionists", or pro abortion people "Pro Choice", or the reverse, or calling firearm owners "Gun nuts", or calling Obama "honest and forthcoming and steadfast in his positions", ok, maybe not as that's an outright lie, or calling Larry Craig, or preferably not calling Larry Craig, etc, etc, etc....
Demonizing your opposite is typical politics. What I don't understand is to what end.
Moose, I'm criticizing you for not doing what your great-grandfather did, while ignoring the fact that the law makes imitating his accomplishments MUCH more difficult now than it was in his time.
There's a product, and a process. I cannot build the exact same thing, no, due to process changes. I can build something within the current process which will be different in a number of respects, but functionally equal if not aesthetically so.
I still don't see the criticism equating to "Follow the law", as the law applies to the process not the product.
"... to the point where it's impossible for you to actually enter the country if you follow it."
Chicken or egg?
Here's my take, and I've seen my share of obviously fake ID's, hired the same guy under a different name the same day I fired him for his name not matching his SSN, etc. If the demand is so high, legal immigration would HAVE to change quickly if it were enforced. What causes ridiculous immigration laws to continue is the fact that there is so much illegal immigration that we don't see the real need for it. All things equal, I would prefer that the govt put their efforts at a border, rather than inside my house, so I prefer that laws be realistic and enforced.
Jake,
When did I mention building a wall?
I've said repeatedly, Immigration reform is not about STOPPING immigration. It's about controlling it a little better than we are now.
Also,
Great! So as long as I'm paying sales tax on crap I buy I don't have to pay income tax? If that is the deal for undocumented workers then I want that deal as well.
Your number 2 makes absolutely no sense at all.
I don't know what you mean by 'fellow travelers' if you mean do I know any illegal aliens then yes, I have had a lot of experience working with them. First as a boarding Officer in the USCG then as a landscaper, then working for a Hospital. presently I have several acquaintances who may be here illegally.
You just referred to Immigration reform as bigoted again. I guess its just easier for you to cast anyone with whom you disagree as the villain.
There's a product, and a process. I cannot build the exact same thing, no, due to process changes. I can build something within the current process which will be different in a number of respects, but functionally equal if not aesthetically so.
No, you can't build "the exact same thing," because the law won't allow you to do so. Say a pioneer from 150 years ago travels through time to criticize me for still living in a rented apartment, whereas said pioneer built and lived in his own home when he was barely more than half my age.
True, but in his day if you wanted to build a house all you had to do, once you had the land, was get some boards or logs and nail them together. He didn't have to follow laws mandating X feet of living space per occupant. He wasn't required to set up an electrical system which requires some advanced education to safely do. He didn't even have to cover his raw-dirt floor if he didn't want to. Etc., etc.
Point is, if I want to "build my own home" I have to meet a LOT of requirements and standards which didn't exist in his day, so for him to criticize me on the grounds that "I was able to build my own home, so you should do it too" is a completely ludicrous comparison.
Point is, if I want to "build my own home" I have to meet a LOT of requirements and standards which didn't exist in his day, so for him to criticize me on the grounds that "I was able to build my own home, so you should do it too" is a completely ludicrous comparison.
I agree with that, but the criticism you referenced previously is not the same. It is "If you're going to come here, follow rules, as my ancestors did". The equivalent is "If you're going to build a house, build it in accordance with the laws, as my ancestors did." You're stretching that to "You need to build a house because my ancestors did", which is a different thing entirely.
To say "You must come to the USA because my ancestors did" is one thing, to say "If you come to the USA you must follow the laws, because my ancestors did" is entirely different.
Now, you may say that it's impossible to build a house under current requirements, and you may be correct. Does this mean society should tolerate you just heading out to a vacant lot owned by someone else and start building? I'd say that probably would not be well recieved.
I agree with that, but the criticism you referenced previously is not the same. It is "If you're going to come here, follow rules, as my ancestors did". The equivalent is "If you're going to build a house, build it in accordance with the laws, as my ancestors did."
You're missing the point, Moose. Saying "Modern immigrants should obey the law just as my ancestors did" is a fair comparison ONLY if the laws are roughly the same, but they're not. If modern immigrants had only to arrive on our shores and prove they have no communicable diseases and are not wanted criminals, then I'd agree.
Instead, modern immigrants have to pay huge amounts of money, jump through all sorts of bureaucratic hoops, wait years and years and STILL have a good chance of getting rejected. Pretending that's in any way analogous to "show up and pass a TB test" is ludicrous.
I've said repeatedly, Immigration reform is not about STOPPING immigration. It's about controlling it a little better than we are now.
I didn't say "stopping" either. But "controlling it a little better" sounds a lot like "making sure fewer people get in" to me, so maybe you could elaborate.
So as long as I'm paying sales tax on crap I buy I don't have to pay income tax?
Well, if you make as much as your standard unskilled immigrant worker... then yeah, you don't have to pay income tax. You are absolutely welcome to take full advantage of that "deal."
BTW, illegal immigrants also get out of paying property tax by way of a cunning dodge called "not owning any property." The horror!
I don't know what you mean by 'fellow travelers'[...]
The big, loud group of Americans who want "immigration reform," which, when you speak to them, turns out to mean "curtailing the number of Mexicans coming over the border." If you're referring to some sort of "immigration reform" that's substantially dissimilar to the "keep more Mexicans out!" position, then by all means, let us in on the secret.
Of course, if your position is substantially different from the popular definition of "immigration reform," then that just makes your initial post in this thread something of a non-sequitur.
You just referred to Immigration reform as bigoted again.
If you're talking about the version that involves ignoring economic facts because it's more important to keep out the brown folks, then yeah, I guess I'm guilty as charged.
I find I can bear my shame with great fortitude.
You're missing the point, Moose.
No, I don't think so. Refer to where I said:
Now, you may say that it's impossible to build a house under current requirements, and you may be correct.
The issue is remedy. If it is fundamentally impossible to build a house in Hartford, CT, for example, due to zoning laws, housing codes, building permit requirements, etc, what should be done about it? Should we change the rules, or should we encourage people to say "What the fuck", and just start building anywhere and anyhow they want? When presented with this case, most people would choose the former, and enforce the existing laws in the interim. What you're saying is to do the latter, and let people have at it. If it were a housing thing, would you really adopt the same posture?
Somehow when dealing with immigration people arrive at a different solution than they do on typical things, which is something I find interesting. Without even getting to the underlying issue, I wonder why people have such a visceral response that causes them to reverse their normal thinking on things.
If it is fundamentally impossible to build a house in Hartford, CT, for example, due to zoning laws, housing codes, building permit requirements, etc, what should be done about it?
For starters, roll your eyes at people who muddy the argument by saying "Let's ignore the differences between homebuilding laws in 1850 and homebuilding laws now, and pretend the analogy 'My ancestors legally built their own home in 1850, so you should find it just as easy to legally build your own home now' is relevant to this discussion'."
'My ancestors legally built their own home in 1850, so you should find it just as easy to legally build your own home now' is relevant to this discussion'."
I agree with that, the HOA/Zoning/Covenant busybodies didn't exist back then, and exterminating them is a fine thing to me. However, what's the remedy? It's fine in concept for me to say I want to put an amateur radio antenna tower in my back yard, contained fully on my property, but what happens when the neighbors object? Do I just do it, or do I try to change the law?
That's the real discussion on immigration, and GG's point, despite the odd name, is that this is what gets ignored. It's a valid point.
That's the real discussion on immigration, and GG's point, despite the odd name, is that this is what gets ignored.
It's not merely ignored; it's obfuscated. Anyone who criticizes illegal immigrants with the argument "Hey, MY ancestors followed the law when THEY came here" ... unless their ancestors emigrated within the past ten years or so it's a dishonest analogy that overlooks the huge differences between immigration laws then and immigration laws now.
But let's not forget the original point of my post: the jingoistic bigots who look at the folks who risk life and limb to escape their third-world hellholes for the chances to work a shit job in hopes of making enough money so that their kids don't have to pick through garbage dumps for food, and say that THESE PEOPLE are what's wrong with America today.
Do I just do it, or do I try to change the law?
I don't think this is an either/or proposition. The law clearly needs to be changed (and not to make it more strict), and should furthermore include amnesty for those who broke the law while the law was bad, just like when the drug war finally ends, all those nonviolent offenders in prison need to be let out as well.
But in the meantime, I can't get behind the idea that a bad law must be followed just because it's a law and laws must be followed so we can have "stability" and "order" and blah blah blah.
(Is it a Godwin-equivalent violation if I bring up the Fugitive Slave Act at this point?)
I'm not opposed to slaves running away from their masters. I'm just opposed to slaves running away from their masters in violation of the law.
I don't think this is an either/or proposition. The law clearly needs to be changed (and not to make it more strict), and should furthermore include amnesty for those who broke the law while the law was bad, just like when the drug war finally ends, all those nonviolent offenders in prison need to be let out as well.
Then the only issue becomes "who gets to choose what good and bad mean." If judged "bad", don't follow it. If judged "good", that's something else.
It's an interesting idea. Of course, it's much better if I get to choose. Not you, of course, just me.
the jingoistic bigots who look at the folks who risk life and limb to escape their third-world hellholes for the chances to work a shit job in hopes of making enough money so that their kids don't have to pick through garbage dumps for food,
That's an issue of the law being changed. All I'm saying is that by the rationale that is applied by the illegal immigrant supporters, extrapolated, is basically "Any law you don't agree with, ignore!"
If, for instance, that same person's view of a shit job is to prowl through my house helping themselves to what they see fit (culturally acceptable in certain locations since I didn't lock my stuff up well enough), I don't necessarily believe that we should suspend the rule of law. Well, perhaps the lethal force application part, but that's it.
Mexico's official position on illegal immigration here falls flat on its face when it comes to illegals coming into Mexico, they're much worse than we are. This is because it's about money, money sent to Mexico, and they know it, and they have no pure minded ethical issues going on. Illegals coming to Mexico send money out. So, they're incredibly hard on them, but all the while advocating just the opposite for us.
We as a country are in the somewhat enviable position of being able to raise ourselves in moral outrage. Most of the rest of the world is scratching for food. We can afford to get all wrapped up in ethical dilemmas. I still maintain that if there were a plethora of shit jobs unfilled, immigration law would change quickly. So, what's preserving it is the very remedy people seem to be advocating.
I'm not opposed to slaves running away from their masters. I'm just opposed to slaves running away from their masters in violation of the law.
Ok...so are you just intentionally trying to be obtuse and argumentative for the hell of it, or do you really not see the difference between a law enslaving a person, and a process to enter a country?
Then the only issue becomes "who gets to choose what good and bad mean." If judged "bad", don't follow it. If judged "good", that's something else.
It's an interesting idea. Of course, it's much better if I get to choose. Not you, of course, just me.
Yes, it's a huge issue. But my stance is that unjust laws have no moral force, and can and should be broken with impunity. (For the record, I don't find property laws to be unjust, and I agree that a law isn't unjust just because someone -- you, me, Congress -- says it is.)
For an extreme example, consider the law requiring Germans to turn over fugitive Jews to the Nazis (or, of course, the law requiring Jews to turn themselves in). Do you hold that it would be ethically wrong for a German citizen to violate that law?
Do you hold that it would be ethically wrong for a German citizen to violate that law?
No, and you could go to extremes each way. Immigration laws are not about slavery, do not result in killing, do nothing to reduce anyone's particular situation. At most they put roadblocks in place towards improving their situation by one particular method, that being moving to the US illegally.
Do you equate laws which enslave people or put them to death without cause to laws requiring a process to apply for citizenship? I don't, it's kind of a ridiculous comparison to me, honestly. The example of building codes is much closer.
Just to be clear, I do believe our immigration laws need to be changed, if nothing else out of practicality, as it doesn't seem to be going away regardless of how you emotionally feel about it. Similarly, drugs, prostitution, those laws need to be changed also if nothing else out of practicality. You can enjoy the "moral outrage" at them, but the reality is that what we currently have isn't working.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to fire up a joint and head down to the local streetwalker, though.
Imagoldengod, if you are a non-racist immigration "reform" advocate then you sir are the first. You should just accept that you are a closet racist. In fact, come out of that closet, toss on that lovely white hood and burn a cross or two on a Mexican families yard. It will make you feel better.
Jennifer, not every Mexican coming across the border is a wannabe American. In fact, most don't want citizenship. They would prefer a guest worker status so they can legally ship money back to their families in Mexico. However the Coyotes are easier to deal with then the bureaucrats.
Oh, and one last thing. Sandy, you go girl! Unless you're a guy then I'd say, you da' man! With a very effeminate name...
And that is exactly what Immigration Reform is all about. Getting rid of out-dated, ill conceived laws, and enforcing the reasonable ones. The challenge is finding a solution that best serves the estimated 12 million undocumented people while being fair to those who came here through legal means and other taxpaying citizens. The extremes are full amnesty on one end and mass deportation on the other. 99.9% of folks probably want something in the middle. Some form of amnesty for the hard working father/mother. Deportation for the members of MS-13 and anyone else with a history of violent crimes. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Imagoldengod, if you are a non-racist immigration "reform" advocate then you sir are the first. You should just accept that you are a closet racist. In fact, come out of that closet, toss on that lovely white hood and burn a cross or two on a Mexican families yard. It will make you feel better.
Obviously you're kidding, but I'd like to point out 3 things. 1.) In any of my posts I never mentioned a single nationality. 2. 'Mexicans' are not a different race. 3.) Many Immigration Reform advocates are non-white.
Regarding my white hood, I left it at your mom's house.
Do you equate laws which enslave people or put them to death without cause to laws requiring a process to apply for citizenship?
It's a difference of degree, not of kind. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, not just the ones north of an imaginary line through the desert.
It's not emotionalism that leads me to support open immigration, but principle. I hold that if your activities are not violating anyone else's rights, any law preventing those activities is unjust. If your actions do violate other people's rights, then your actions should be outlawed.
As an example, let's say someone from Mexico (we'll call him Antonio) comes to the US to work. Antonio finds a job at a meat-packing plant owned by Bob. Antonio works hard; he doesn't steal anything, he doesn't harm anyone. Whose rights has Antonio violated? Why is the US working so hard to find and deport Antonio?
[...] while being fair to those who came here through legal means [...]
Spare us your appeal to tradition. If they came here through legal means, they're already here. The fact that someone else snuck across the Rio Grande under cover of night doesn't impact them one whit.
Jake,
All I ask and most people who support Immigration reform ask, is that Antonio be part of the club and pay taxes like the rest of us. Very few people support mass deportation of hard working families. Immigration Reform is about making it easier for Antonio to become a citizen and not to have to live in the shadows.
Your last paragraph is completely wrong. I wasn't taking about tradition, I was referring to now. I know this may sound strange to you, but people come to the United States to live and work legally every day. My Brother-in-law for one, and my boss are some examples. The person who snuck across the Rio Grande is consuming just as many resources as the person who came here legally but not contributing in the form of paying taxes.
All I ask and most people who support Immigration reform ask, is that Antonio be part of the club and pay taxes like the rest of us.
Then it seems like open borders (Ellis Island style, like Jennifer described) should suit you just fine.
I imagine most of the Antonios out there would be perfectly happy to have a green card (and pay social security taxes, etc.); it's just that there aren't enough available, and our current minimum wage laws make getting jobs that much more difficult for them.
And I have to point out that right now "most people who support immigration reform" are demanding a reduction in immigration, and emphatically not a liberalization of the laws.
"Then it seems like open borders (Ellis Island style, like Jennifer described) should suit you just fine."
Ellis Island was not open borders. It was a single point of entry for newly arriving immigrants. Yes, I do support that model. That's the whole point!
"I imagine most of the Antonios out there would be perfectly happy to have a green card (and pay social security taxes, etc.); it's just that there aren't enough available, and our current minimum wage laws make getting jobs that much more difficult for them."
That would require changing our present system of Immigration, reforming it if you will.
"And I have to point out that right now "most people who support immigration reform" are demanding a reduction in immigration, and emphatically not a liberalization of the laws."
That absolutely is not true.
Everyone on this post has agreed we have to change SOMETHING about our Immigration. That's called Immigration Reform.
That previous one was me by the way
That absolutely is not true. Everyone on this post has agreed we have to change SOMETHING about our Immigration. That's called Immigration Reform.
And if the population of the US were 7 instead of 300,000,000, you'd have a great point. But a Gallup poll that ran from June-July of this year provides evidence to the contrary. The pollsters asked this question:
Thinking now about immigrants -- that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States: In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?
A full 78% of respondents wanted immigration to either stay the same or be decreased (39% for each option). Only 18% wanted it to be increased. Other polls reflect the same tendencies; I'm not just cherry-picking here.
Your claim that most people who want immigration reform are on the "increase" side just doesn't fit with the facts.
Your claim that most people who want immigration reform are on the "increase" side just doesn't fit with the facts.
True. The only point that could be true is that people who post on Jennifer's blog all pretty much agree that something must be done.
The taxes argument is bullshit.
Lets say I own a construction company. I hire myself a whole passel of illegals and pay them under the table. I have no records of them as employees.
Ok, I can't claim one thin dime of their wages as a payroll deduction on my taxes. I have to pay taxes on those wages as if they were profits.
Lets say I own that same company and I hire illegals who show me an obviously faked Social Security card and Drivers Licence. Well, I dutifully copy the documents and deduct the money from their pay so I can claim their wages as a deduction. Thus taxes are taken out, sent to the IRS and yet no 1040 is ever filed under their name so the IRS gets to keep ALL the money instead of returning some of it.
Either way the IRS gets their pound of flesh. Don't you closet racists worry about that one little bit. In fact, if the business goes the full under the table method, the IRS gets MORE money as they tax the business at a higher rate than the individuals pay.
Oh and goldenfraud, I had my momma look for your hood and she couldn't find it. I think you left it at your boyfriends house.
Thus taxes are taken out, sent to the IRS and yet no 1040 is ever filed under their name so the IRS gets to keep ALL the money instead of returning some of it.
CL-
Let's say for the sake of discussion that I'm a VP in one of your aforementioned construction companies. You neglect to mention that the game entails the person have about 8-10 exemptions on their withholding. There is FICA taken out, but in reality the amount of taxes are very small.
BTW, did you post the link for me on the other thread?
Ellis Island was not open borders. It was a single point of entry for newly arriving immigrants. Yes, I do support that model. That's the whole point!
Technically, it wasn't a "single" point, just the biggest and most famous one; people from Mexico or Canada didn't have to take the long way 'round to get to Ellis Island.
So if you're willing to place these points of entry in multiple places along the borders of the US (say, where there are border crossings for legal travellers now), and let in anyone who doesn't have a communicable disease or, say, a violent criminal history, then we've got a lot of common ground to work from.
(However, that doesn't mean either of us are for "immigration reform" as the term is currently understood by the public, since the phrase "immigration reform" apparently now means "more immigration restrictions".)
...and let in anyone who doesn't have a communicable disease...
You know, for many years the people I worked with in Haiti could not get a visa here, just because of the Haitian AIDS scare. I don't know if this is currently true, as I moved about 8 years ago and lost my contacts. Understand these people were not sick, not HIV positive, they were just Haitian. Admittedly there are areas within Port Au Prince where the infection rate approaches 20%, but there should be some way around such a scare even if it's "Go get a blood test from a doctor on this list" or something.
You neglect to mention that the game entails the person have about 8-10 exemptions on their withholding. There is FICA taken out, but in reality the amount of taxes are very small.
Unless I'm much mistaken, even under that scenario, the IRS still gets a larger amount than the person would likely pay were they a US citizen working aboveboard for the same wage.
Remember, the low-wage US citizen gets it all back at the end of the year, and often gets back even more than they paid (Earned Income Credit, anyone?).
Unless I'm much mistaken, even under that scenario, the IRS still gets a larger amount than the person would likely pay were they a US citizen working aboveboard for the same wage.
You are mistaken.
Let's say I file as "Married, jointly, 6 exemptions", which is about what I file. I pay $X through withholding, and this results in me getting a small refund at the end of the year to a small payment (less than $1500 either way). To make the math easier, let's say that my total tax bill is $10,000, and the six exemptions put me about where that is.
If I were to claim, say, 12 exemptions, my withholding would drop dramatically. It's not linear, but let's say it drops to 60% of previous. Now, the amount withheld is only $6,000.
Therefore, the IRS is out $4K by doing it that way.
The problem is that you're assuming that U.N. Documented, Jr, actually files a tax return. He doesn't, so what the IRS gets is the $6K in withholding. If he gets caught, he becomes someone else, that's all.
For example...now, let's assume that U.N. Documented, Jr, uses A Moose's SSN. Giving myself a raise, let's say I make 150 bones a year. I file my return showing this, and the IRS comes back to me and says "Mr Moose, you claimed gross income of $150K, but we're showing $220K reported under your SSN...now, you've withheld another $6K, which is nice, but please send us a check for another $15,000 to make up the difference. Love, Your IRS Pals".
Of course, I'll object, and the employer will send me a letter saying that I never worked there and it's a bad SSN. They'll probably fire the worker. Amazingly, a guy that looks EXACTLY like that worker, even down to the fingerprints, gets hired later that afternoon. Of course this person has a different SSN, slightly different papers, etc, but probably has a different name. Amazing how that works.
Don't hate the player, hate the game, I guess?
Just FYI, I do get paid for being a VP of a construction firm. Not that it gives me any special status or anything, I've just been through the rodeo a few times in my past, as I've worked for eight companies, as well as for myself, over the years. The scenario I've laid out above is actually pretty basic, some of the convoluted stuff these guys come up with would cause your head to explode.
Caveman,
I thought the first time you called me a racist you were kidding, but I guess not. Could you please point to anything I've written that indicates racism? Or is demonizing anyone with whom you disagree just your thing?
However,
You are truly a child in a mans world.
Here is how the world actually works.
I have, say, a landscaping company. What I do is drive to my local Home Depot parking lot where Immigrant day laborers wait for someone to come offer them work. I pick up 3 strong looking men and give them each $50 in cash to mow lawns, cut brush, remove some trees all day at the mansion of some elitist lawyer asshole with a bad case of rich white guilt. I don't give them eye protection, hearing protection, I don't bother to make sure they are wearing safety shoes. I don't waste any time showing them how to safely use a chainsaw. Oh, and they have to work 12 hours. As the business owner I just collected about $6000 for the work and paid about $150 for labor and a few bucks for gas. By the way, when one of these inexperienced workers hits himself with an axe he'll go to the emergency room and receive shitty care because the latest census information which determines how much subsidies a hospital gets does not reflect the, say, 3000 undocumented people living in the area. Therefore the hospital is underfunded and under equipped.
Yeah, you're right this system is perfectly fine.
You have no idea how the world actually works.
Have any of you actually worked as any kind of laborer? I have.
I can assure you nobody is looking at social security cards or worried about exemptions and all that nonsense.
"Mr Moose, you claimed gross income of $150K, but we're showing $220K reported under your SSN...now, you've withheld another $6K, which is nice, but please send us a check for another $15,000 to make up the difference. Love, Your IRS Pals".
So you figure that the average unskilled illegal immigrant is making $70,000 per year? That's pretty damned impressive!
And I'm certainly not assuming that Mr. U.N. Documented is filing a tax return. Why would he? He has no SSN, so he can't get the money back.
What the tax argument is boiling down to, however, is this:
1) The IRS has bizarre and byzantine rules.
2) ???
3) Ergo, we must keep undocumented immigrants out of the country!
The fucked-up rules of the IRS is something we should be blaming the feds for, not the immigrants who have no choice but to try and game our Orwellian tax system just so they can work. They're still paying taxes. Money is still flowing from their labor into government coffers. The United States is still richer than it was before they crossed the border.
I'm still waiting to hear why that's a Bad Thing for the country.
I pick up 3 strong looking men and give them each $50 in cash to mow lawns, cut brush, remove some trees all day at the mansion of some elitist lawyer asshole with a bad case of rich white guilt.
And those three guys are happy to have the work, because it's better than any of their alternatives.
That's an important concept to understand.
For me, it'd suck to do that job, because I have plenty of better alternatives. Those guys at the Home Depot? They don't. That job is the best option they have. The profit made by the guy who picks 'em up is irrelevant, as is the profession or personality of the homeowner.
The idea that taking that option away from them is for their own good is simply insane, unless you care to argue that it'd be far more compassionate to keep them in Mexico, where they could starve quietly, without having to work for any OMG EVIL ELITISTS!!!
Jake,
Once again, you have it completely backwards.
The idea is to make it BETTER for them. Not take it away. Insure they get HIGHER pay, SAFER working conditions.
Oh my God, this is like explaining something to my 2 year old.
The Rich asshole Lawyer part was directed 'Caveman Lawyer'
The idea is to make it BETTER for them. Not take it away. Insure they get HIGHER pay, SAFER working conditions.
Yeah, Jake! When law enforcement goes after the illegals and imprisons or deports them, it's for their own good!
Kinda like why we imprison pot smokers and saddle them with arrest records that follow them the rest of their lives: so they won't ruin their lives via smoking pot.
Goldenfraud, you really make me laugh. The thought that you care about the dark skinned folks that you want to keep out of our fair country is beyond laughable. Every racist in the history of humanity has used such lame methods to try and cover up for their hate.
Slave owners in the American South often pointed out how well cared for their slaves were, they often talked about how the black man was incapable of surviving in the white world. They told these lies so often that eventually they actually saw themselves as benefactors instead of oppressors.
Claiming that you just want an orderly method of entry so these workers can get health care, disability insurance and all the other bennies that most American laborers don't get is taking the big lie to the extreme.
Tell me what good and pure White American Citizen laborer is getting health coverage, disability insurance or anything more than workman's comp? Of course if the slick owner classifies the laborers as a "subcontractors", then they don't even have workman's comp.
I worked as a day laborer for a few months in my life. I can't count the number of times I had to do dangerous work with the barest safety precautions. As a day laborer any protections I had were offered by the labor contract company and in order to work there I had to sign a form that stated I was a subcontractor to their firm. I didn't understand what the meant until I owned my own business many years later.
BTW, I am as white as they come and my family has been in this glorious country for at least five generations. I was doing the day laborer gig because I couldn't get anything else at that time. Just like those poor folks from Mexico who want a shot a getting some dollars to send home so their kids can get a better life in Mexico.
As for the eight to ten exemptions thing, I have to say every time I try to claim more than four my bosses hand me a new form and ask me to be reasonable. Maybe I work in a more honest field but somehow I doubt it.
The point of all this is there are taxes being collected and sent in on the money made either by the undocumented workers or by the company that employs them. There ain't no free lunch with the IRS. The reason undocumented workers are popular with employers is #1) they work cheaper than union goons and #2) they show up sober and work their asses off. At least that's how it's been on all the construction sites I've been on.
WARNING! WARNING WARNING!
The below link is not for use at work or near small children... or your wife... or anyone with taste. It is put here so Moose, and anyone else sick enough to want to pass a horrible evil link to someone can do so.
If you click on this link you may very well be serenaded with "HEY EVERYBODY! I'M LOOKING AT GAY PORN!" and your screen will be filled with... well.. um... gay porn.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~attse/honduh.htm
Follow the link at your own risk.
Jennifer's blog: come for the commentary. Stay for the chance to click on a stray link and ruin your life.
Oh come on Jen, Moose was practically BEGGING me to post the link to him. His e-mail isn't available so what else was I supposed to do?
Once he gets it and lets me know if it still works I will trash the message so no random innocent bystanders who fail to read the warnings will be injured by their ignorance.
Oh my God, this is like explaining something to my 2 year old.
Your two-year-old has apparently already caught on to the fact that you're a goddamned idiot.
Seriously, if you don't even know what the debate is about ("I'm sure almost everyone agrees with me that it's about mandating safety equipment for landscapers!"), maybe "assume some bullshit is true and present it with smug assurance" isn't really the best option in your playbook, you know?
Once he gets it and lets me know if it still works I will trash the message so no random innocent bystanders who fail to read the warnings will be injured by their ignorance.
Nope, doesn't work. Darn, would have been hilarious.
As for the eight to ten exemptions thing, I have to say every time I try to claim more than four my bosses hand me a new form and ask me to be reasonable. Maybe I work in a more honest field but somehow I doubt it.
They can't mandate you claiming any particular number of exemptions. So, they can ask, but it's your tax return and money so they can't mandate.
The point of all this is there are taxes being collected and sent in on the money made either by the undocumented workers or by the company that employs them.
Yes, there are. On the employees, they try to minimize it for income tax withholding by jacking up their exemptions. On the FICA side, there's 15% of wages (employer and employee) which will never be collected. That's why the govt doesn't spend a whole bunch of time chasing it down.
There ain't no free lunch with the IRS. The reason undocumented workers are popular with employers is #1) they work cheaper than union goons and #2) they show up sober and work their asses off. At least that's how it's been on all the construction sites I've been on.
And they are there. One can make a hell of a lot of money working as an equipment operator lately. If one can run a grader, and is younger than 50-ish, then you're a rare commodity. It's hard to find people willing to work, they'd rather take a lot less working with computers like a slave.
Most of our laborers are around $12/HR bare wages. If you take 2500 hrs/yr, though most do something as a second job, you're talking 2000*12+500*18=$33K gross wages (the 500 is assumed to be OT). So, they're not necessarily at poverty line either.
BTW, when I was making up numbers earlier, I wasn't assuming that there was just myself and one other using the SSN. Most of the time due to the ID mills, a couple use the same SSN over the country.
Well Jake, most racists like Goldenfraud aren't likely to be missed by NASA...
Sorry Moose, someone must have tracked it down and killed it. I found plenty of chat about it out there and that link showed up several times so I had hoped it would work for you.
I agree with you that non-filing employees will do whatever they can to keep as much as they can but when I played that game twenty years ago I could at best claim four as a single guy. The book keeper never let me do any more. She was afraid that the IRS was going to smack her down for a single guy claiming more than that. I suppose it varies by business.
But then, if they WERE good white citizens claiming all their brood of ignorant brats as dependants they'd likely get more back than they pay with all the giveaways the gubiment does for so called "working poor". So the money collected on illegals at least isn't a net loss on the books. Anything they manage to collect from an illegal Mexican is going to be better than what they'd get off a dumb redneck in the same situation.
No doubt construction work pays well and the demand for workers is far higher than the supply of willing white folks, that's why illegals fill the jobs so often. That's why the "But they are stealing good white people jobs" is such a bullshit argument. They are doing jobs white folks don't want to do. Most white folks will go on welfare before doing a hard days work.
Caveman,
"Most white folks will go on welfare before doing a hard days work."
Isn't this a bit racist?
That must have been a very difficult time for you working as a day laborer for a few months 20 years ago. You poor thing, was this before your trust fund kicked in? You elitist douche. You're just worried that if there is real reform you may have to actually pay your housekeeper a decent wage, you fucking hypocrite. Go drink your latte, check your stocks and play a round of golf at your whites only country club.
Let those of us who live in the real world and do the heavy lifting make the decisions. You and your silly, childish, naive ideas have fucked it up enough already.
I found plenty of chat about it out there and that link showed up several times so I had hoped it would work for you
I saw the chatter too. Thanks for taking the time though.
Let those of us who live in the real world and do the heavy lifting make the decisions. You and your silly, childish, naive ideas have fucked it up enough already.
I'd think, after your performance in this thread, that you'd want to tone down your rhetoric about other people's naivete. You aren't exactly batting a thousand on the whole "making claims that are in line with reality" thing.
You aren't exactly batting a thousand on the whole "making claims that are in line with reality" thing.
Actually about the only one on this thread that sounds like he knows what he's talking about is Moose. The rest of you - not so much.
Well, if you want to point out a claim I've made that isn't supported by the facts, I'll be happy to either back it up or admit my error.
And I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may not "sound like" I know what I'm talking about. I do tend to get rather less eloquent when dealing with the (apparently) willfully obtuse.
The Rich asshole Lawyer part was directed 'Caveman Lawyer'
The poor prickish blue collar part was directed in the other direction by anotomical necessity.
Actually about the only one on this thread that sounds like he knows what he's talking about is Moose.
Thus SASOB provides conclusive proof that he is male, as no female ever thought I knew I was talking about.
Well, if you want to point out a claim I've made that isn't supported by the facts, I'll be happy to either back it up or admit my error
I don't think it's so much claim but tone. Believability and shrillness tend to be inversely related mathematically, in my experience.
Goldenfraud, talking nasty about white folk is never racist. That's how the game is played doncha' know. If you don't have your own copy of "The Race Card Handbook" contact Jesse Jackson Ministries, I'm certain he can get you a copy.. for a fee of course.
As a general question to the gang here, do I really write well enough for people to think that I am a lawyer for real?!? Or is Goldenfraud just that much of an ignorant redneck to think anyone who spells 90% of his words right must be some high falutin' college boy type or sumpthin'.
Or is Goldenfraud just that much of an ignorant redneck to think anyone who spells 90% of his words right must be some high falutin' college boy type or sumpthin'.
Where's that spelling nazi when you need them? Don't you know it's "Sumptin"? There ain't no "h" in there!
I don't think it's so much claim but tone. Believability and shrillness tend to be inversely related mathematically, in my experience.
Rereading, I can see how I would come across as shrill, which was not my intent (does anyone ever intend to sound shrill?). My involvement in this thread was sparked by goldengod's initial post, and I took a confrontational tone from the start. Mea culpa.
Jake, I think my mother in law intends to sound shrill... She's so good at it she must be trying.
Moose, when degrading ones English skills to the level of an ignorant redneck like Goldenfraud there is no Google Toolbar that one can turn to. It has to be done by how such people sound to a cultured and educated ear such as mine. I hear an "h" in how they say "something", perhaps your ear has a different culture.
I hear an "h" in how they say "something", perhaps your ear has a different culture.
Well, trust me, unless you can tell me what the rule is about digging fence post holes, and can explain the difference between a hissy fit and conyption.
Spelled that wrongly, make it "Conniption" instead.
Hmm... I have no such knowledge. However according to Bill Cosby a "Conniption" requires skin to melt off the face and fire to come out of the eyes. But you may disagree with him too.
As a general question to the gang here, do I really write well enough for people to think that I am a lawyer for real?!?
No.
Hmm... I have no such knowledge. However according to Bill Cosby a "Conniption" requires skin to melt off the face and fire to come out of the eyes. But you may disagree with him too.
Conniption is had by a male, Hissy Fits are had by females. If you say a guy has a "Hissy Fit", you're not only saying he's out of control, you're questioning his manhood.
As for fence posts, I'l quote a web source:
"It is a proven fact that digging fence posts during the new moon will result in having dirt left over and post may heave from the ground. Digging during/after the full moon there may not be enough dirt to completely fill the hole back up but the post will settle tighter. "
Such things you learn from those who don't use an "h" in their sumptin, which was my point.
Don't be a sexist, Moose. I'm female and I have conniption fits on a regular basis.
Don't be a sexist, Moose. I'm female and I have conniption fits on a regular basis.
Well, judging by your photo I'd say fire probably shoots from your eyeballs now and then anyway. ;-)
See, we never dug fence post holes, we used the metal ones and drove them into the ground. New Moon, Full Moon, Half Assed Moon no difference in how they went in.
If we had to put in corner posts we'd take the tractor out, sharpen the posts and push them into the ground. Not a problem.
But then in the north we have to get shit done before it snows. down south they can be lazy and wait for the right phase of the moon for working on fences.
Don't be a sexist, Moose. I'm female and I have conniption fits on a regular basis.
Hey, I'm not being sexist, that's how they use it in the south. I would have thought the fine Virginia gentlewoman you be, you would have known that!
Post a Comment
<< Home