Public Charges Beware

Author: bmdrocks21
Immigration

Posts

Total: 56
Topic's author
#1
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
The SCOTUS just voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow new changes to legal immigration. It will allow immigration officials to take into consideration whether or not a legal immigrant will become a public charge and rely on public assistance.

This seems rather pragmatic to me: why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money? We are a country, not a charity, and being a charity is precisely why we are racking up trillions in debt.

So, anyone feel free to post your thoughts on this new development. I have heard this may be a good way to stop chain migration.

If any lefties would like to explain why we shouldn't be allowed to engage in financial responsibility, I am all ears.
#2
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money?
because they will keep you in power, that is the only answer really.
look at all the things they want to give illegals, driver's license, health care etc while largely ignoring the veterans, homeless and poor citizens. 
Topic's author
#3
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, they just take the homeless and poor votes for granted. They just say that those dastardly Republicans will take away everything.
#4
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
I've said this many times, and I believe it to be true.  There is great benefit to keeping people poor and dependant on the government.  Self sufficient people are very difficult to control, you have very little to promise them.
#5
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
This seems rather pragmatic to me: why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money? We are a country, not a charity, and being a charity is precisely why we are racking up trillions in debt.
Lol america was literally founded on this idea. America is a country of immigrants. America has gone from:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

To:

Get the fuck out unless you have money.


Topic's author
#6
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That is a really good point. Promising jobs to people is one of the biggest promises of any candidate. Hard to do so without a bunch of unemployment. Easy to offer free healthcare as the solution when medicare and medicaid price fixing have driven up private sector prices so much people can't afford that. They also aren't poor enough to qualify for government aid and get screwed in the center. Then they go for that middle majority. Interesting how this works.....

Topic's author
#7
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
Yes, a POEM from 1883 is where we should get our immigration advice from. It is on the Statue of LIBERTY- not the statue of immigration.

Second of all, we didn't have a bloated welfare state back then, so that wasn't even a consideration when taking in new immigrants. So, nice try.

#8
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
the U.S. didn't even build the statue lol, the poem was used to raise money for the pedestal so even that wasn't government funded it would seem.  If that poem is the best argument they got it's quite laughable.

Regardless of that immigration has always been a legal process, not just border jumping or staying illegally in any other manner.
Topic's author
#9
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, it was given to us to celebrate 100 years of independence lol. Somehow that has something to do with immigration? Pretty sure it was written about Jewish pogroms in Russia, too, not immigration in general.
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, a POEM from 1883 is where we should get our immigration advice from. It is on the Statue of LIBERTY- not the statue of immigration.
Just showing how far the right has sunk. America used to about liberty and the american dream for anyone who would come and fight for it. Now the right just wants to attack and keep everyone out unless they can profit from them. The right wants to destroy the foundation of america. 

Second of all, we didn't have a bloated welfare state back then, so that wasn't even a consideration when taking in new immigrants. So, nice try.
And most of those immigrants will go on and get jobs and pay back the investment. And then their children and grand children will get jobs and pay it all back many, many times over. The idea that immigrants are a drain on society is stupid and extremely short sighted. 
Topic's author
#11
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Just showing how far the right has sunk. America used to about liberty and the american dream for anyone who would come and fight for it. Now the right just wants to attack and keep everyone out unless they can profit from them. The right wants to destroy the foundation of america. 

Lol, where have you been? Ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? We haven't historically let in unending waves of immigration. That started with the Hart Celler Act. Just shows how lefties have really shifted the narrative.

And most of those immigrants will go on and get jobs and pay back the investment. And then their children and grand children will get jobs and pay it all back many, many times over. The idea that immigrants are a drain on society is stupid and extremely short sighted. 

That depends. I don't know that tomato farmers will ever make enough to get off of welfare. Especially when they refuse to learn English and live in their little enclaves. 


Topic's author
#12
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Want to talk about how far the left has sunk? Letting in people who will cost us billions just for votes is sinking kind of low.
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Want to talk about how far the left has sunk? Letting in people who will cost us billions just for votes is sinking kind of low.
So the left has sunk to the level of doing exactly what america has always done? Oh my god. How will america ever recover.....

Also, I already explained that the idea that immigrants cost america money is stupid. So no, I reject your flawed xenophobia. 
#14
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
I want welfare banned as well, but if your going to advocate for any immigration restrictions, they should be consistently applied to native born citizens and they should be specific.  People say we need immigration reform, even though they never specify how they would reform the system.  Some common ones that I hear from people against open borders are:

- They must know English: Why?  If it's necessary for a job, what if they can get a job without knowing English?

- They must not consume welfare: I understand this, but if we ban welfare for immigrants, we should ban it for everybody to keep it consistent.  If welfare is banned, any immigrant here for welfare would leave.

-They must have a job: What if they are retired and don't collect our social security since they didn't pay into it?  I'd be fine with immigrants only getting a proportional amount of social security that is proportional to the amount of time they were in the country (ex: If you need 50 years of work to collect social security, and your here for 25 years, you get half a normal social security payment per month)

Any other concerns with open borders?
Topic's author
#15
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
So no, I reject your flawed xenophobia.

Oh no! I'm shaking in my boots! Please don't call me a fascist or a Nazi now!

Also, I already explained that the idea that immigrants cost america money is stupid.
Considering that over 50% of immigrant-led households are on welfare, I have yet to see that.
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Oh no! I'm shaking in my boots! Please don't call me a fascist or a Nazi now!
Xenophobes don't have to be facist or nazis. But they are afraid of "others" and make up reasons to vilify and target them. which is exactly what you are doing. 

Considering that over 50% of immigrant-led households are on welfare, I have yet to see that.
And how many 2nd generation immigrant families are on welfare? How much value to do those immigrants add to society?

Does america make as much income on an immigrant as it makes of a native citizen, statistically no. But they add a massive boost to america's otherwise stagnant and even declining population. Their children will be native born citizens who add huge amounts of value. 

Supporting immigrants is not a burden. It is an investment that pays off many times over. If you stopped immigrants from coming you would save some money now, but cost a complete fortune in the future. Your financial argument is bullshit. 
Topic's author
#17
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Alec
- They must know English: Why?  If it's necessary for a job, what if they can get a job without knowing English?

Well, generally this is made under the assumption of operating in the real world and knowing that welfare won't be abolished. Immigrants with low English proficiency earn a lot less and are therefore more welfare-dependent. 

Also, it could be argued that it hurts national unity if you don't learn the native language. If you can't understand people because they are speaking Portuguese, Spanish, German, Russia, etc, how can you get along with them? Am I expected to learn every language on earth, or should they be expected to learn our language when they come to our country?

- They must not consume welfare: I understand this, but if we ban welfare for immigrants, we should ban it for everybody to keep it consistent.  If welfare is banned, any immigrant here for welfare would leave.

Why? This is a bad idea for two reasons. First, we use that to try to deter public charges. Second, presumably Americans have been paying into welfare for 10-20 years, whereas immigrants have not. So, banning them from using it for a certain amount of years makes sense.

-They must have a job: What if they are retired and don't collect our social security since they didn't pay into it?  I'd be fine with immigrants only getting a proportional amount of social security that is proportional to the amount of time they were in the country (ex: If you need 50 years of work to collect social security, and your here for 25 years, you get half a normal social security payment per month)

Retirement and unemployment are completely different. Generally, retirement is when you have saved up a lot of money and no longer need to work. Unemployment wouldn't matter without welfare, but considering we can't just get rid of welfare, it is a problem because they will then use it without a job.

Any other concerns with open borders?

Doubt we will ever agree on this subject. The combination of wage destruction, non-assimilation, cultural destruction, and many other factors prevent me from accepting it.
Topic's author
#18
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Xenophobes don't have to be facist or nazis. But they are afraid of "others" and make up reasons to vilify and target them. which is exactly what you are doing. 

I'm not afraid of them. I want immigrants, just not 30-year-old men with 8th grade educations. I want people who have skills that will contribute vastly for our economy. I'm not really in favor of uneducated manual laborers, as they end up costing a lot more than they provide.

If this would be a worker program in which they didn't receive welfare, I could potentially see the appeal of that.

And how many 2nd generation immigrant families are on welfare? How much value to do those immigrants add to society?

It depends on the second-generation immigrant's country of origin more or less. Countries with bad education systems and other programs that help them develop skills generally send immigrants that cost us. In the instance of 2nd generation Mexican immigrants (and over half of all immigration comes from Mexico currently), they still receive welfare at higher rates than natives and many other immigrant groups. I want the Mexicans that won't be public charges, Asians that won't be public charges, and Europeans who won't be public charges. IDGAF where you are from, I just don't want you costing me money, so your jibberish about xenophobia is ridiculous.

#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not afraid of them. I want immigrants, just not 30-year-old men with 8th grade educations. I want people who have skills that will contribute vastly for our economy. I'm not really in favor of uneducated manual laborers, as they end up costing a lot more than they provide.
So you want immigrants, you just only want the ones with money. 

It depends on the second-generation immigrant's country of origin more or less. Countries with bad education systems and other programs that help them develop skills generally send immigrants that cost us.
Countries don't "send" people to america. 

In the instance of 2nd generation Mexican immigrants (and over half of all immigration comes from Mexico currently), they still receive welfare at higher rates than natives and many other immigrant groups.
1) please provide evidence of that
2) even if it were slightly higher (which you haven't proven yet), that doesn't mean that they are costing us money. If they have a 1% higher rate, they would still be a massive net positive. 
3) even if they were a net loss, that would likely be our fault anyway. If those children couldn't get a proper education because of xenophobic, anti immigrant policies, then we are only worsening the problem. The answer would be to provide better education to immigrant children, not to try to prevent immigrants coming. 

IDGAF where you are from, I just don't want you costing me money, so your jibberish about xenophobia is ridiculous.
sorry, I forgot you hate all poor people equally. 
#20
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm definitely not a progressive, but I doubt that the decision will necessarily lead to cost savings. Immigrants are less likely to rely on welfare benefits when compared to their native-born counterparts (1). In fact, legal permanent residents are typically ineligible for most means-tested welfare programs until they live in the US for 5 years, and in some cases, fulfilled some work-based requirements (2). It is unclear how how much money will be raised through precluding more people from funding given the draconian mandates that already exclude a large portion of immigrants from receiving aid.
A glance at the immigration bureaucracy suggests that the policy may cause more problems than it solves. Increased reporting requirements in the past proved to be a contributing factor to the ongoing application backlog afflicting the USCIS, and the inexorable truth is that increased requirements are going to be necessary to determine whether someone is "self-sufficient." The National Law Review reported that in the FY 2018, the backlog grew to over 5 million, a 26% increase from 2016 (3). Requests for Evidence for H1-B visas and the complexity of immigration petitions are culpable for much of the growing backlog. There are no set guidelines to ascertain who is likely to become a public charge and who isn't. Vague guidelines coupled with inexact reporting requirements (everything from ability to pay for private medical insurance to pre-existing medical conditions are used to determine if an immigrant has a negative "strike," and it is unclear where they get this info,) and increased processing time will only shovel more forms into the cornucopia of paperwork that the USCIS is tasked with finishing. Requiring more resources to deal with this ballooning backlog is a significant cost. Instead of reforming their resource-intensive guidelines, the USCIS modus operandi in dealing with the backlog has been to hike immigration fees on both businesses dependent on employment-based visas and the applicants (4) (5). Saddling businesses with a burdensome fee deters them from hiring immigrants, which seems contrary to the purpose of the policy. Surely we should encourage immigrants who are willing to work to emigrate to the US. Also, by deterring immigrants to enter through legal pathways into the US, we increase the chance that they use coyotes, (human smugglers with unmatched knowledge of our border policies) to enter the US illegally. Many of these coyotes are on the payroll of Mexican cartels, and supply millions of dollars in revenue to their perfidious employers (6).

Perhaps the benefits of such a program will manifest in the coming years, but a healthy dose of skepticism is never bad per se.

Sources

#21
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
America used to about liberty
liberty like more unconstitutional laws and restrictions?, yep it used to be about liberty, the only liberty is libertarians which you are not so I'm not sure you have much to point fingers at.

imagine if all these illegals, unskilled works were now making $15 per hour?  that would be an even larger drain on the economy since prices will go up drastically.

there's been some examples of what happens when the wages are increased like that, unintended consequences.

a fruit picker with a family can not contribute more to the economy than what they use, schools, other public services, healthcare etc.

#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
liberty like more unconstitutional laws and restrictions?
You are, in this very argument, advocating for more laws and restrictions that run contrary to the founding principles of america. 

yep it used to be about liberty, the only liberty is libertarians which you are not so I'm not sure you have much to point fingers at.

Libertarians want the freedom for corporations and the rich to do whatever they want to everyone else. Forgive me if I don't believe the tyranny of the rich is better than governing by democracy. 

Imagine if all these illegals, unskilled works were now making $15 per hour?
If immigration was reformed, then they wouldn't be illegal. Problem solved. 

imagine if all these illegals, unskilled works were now making $15 per hour?  that would be an even larger drain on the economy since prices will go up drastically.
lol imagine if poor people got paid enough to live on?!?!?! the horror. if they don't live in abject poverty, you might have to pay a bit more for your products. You just come off as someone who is fine forcing others to live in poverty and squalor so the rich can get MUCH richer and you can save a few bucks on consumer goods. 

a fruit picker with a family can not contribute more to the economy than what they use, schools, other public services, healthcare etc.
Why? That argument doesn't even make sense. 
Topic's author
#23
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
that run contrary to the founding principles of america. 

I'll get to your other stuff later, but you honestly want to go down this road? The founding principles of America are violated by almost every law you propose. Most matters are meant to be handled by states. Department of Education? Unconstitutional. Universal Healthcare? Well, that duty wasn't given to the federal government, so... unconstitutional. The list goes on......
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'll get to your other stuff later, but you honestly want to go down this road? The founding principles of America are violated by almost every law you propose.
no, no they are not. 

Most matters are meant to be handled by states.
That's just because the states wanted to be free to do whatever they want. A state government being in charge of something is not fundamentally different to a national government running it. It just makes it alot easier to use money and influence to get laws you want in 1 state. 

Department of Education? Unconstitutional.
lol no. The constitution doesn't say the government doesn't have the power to do that. It isn't explicitly included one way or the other. If you want to say that any power not granted by the constitution shouldn't be had by the government, then the government would be completely useless as technology and society change. You would be virtually guaranteeing the death of democracy and rule by an oligarchy. 

Universal Healthcare? Well, that duty wasn't given to the federal government, so... unconstitutional. The list goes on......
again, just because the constitution doesn't say something, doesn't make the government doing something "unconstitutional". The constitution doesn't say anything about who has the power to create laws about the internet. By your logic no one should be able to do that.

#25
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, generally this is made under the assumption of operating in the real world and knowing that welfare won't be abolished.

The only reason why people go on welfare is because they need money.  If they can get this money through getting a better job, then no welfare is necessary.  People aren't that lazy and they want to work.  They just don't know how.

Also, it could be argued that it hurts national unity if you don't learn the native language.
In the long term, this isn't the case.  In the 1920s, immigrants interbred with each other, and with native born Americans, and their offspring was American by default.  In the short term, there was some cultural division.  But this went away as the immigrants assiliminated to their country on their own, interbred with Americans and other immigrants, and the kids ended up being completely assiliminated.

If you can't understand people because they are speaking Portuguese, Spanish, German, Russia, etc, how can you get along with them?
Google translate and their offspring, which tend to be bilingual.  Just as people in the 1920s managed to assimilate to the US as time went on, the same thing would happen with this new batch of immigrants.

Second, presumably Americans have been paying into welfare for 10-20 years, whereas immigrants have not.
I don't think every American pays into welfare.  Some get it without paying.  The people on welfare I don't think get off of it ever generally, but I might be wrong on this.

Generally, retirement is when you have saved up a lot of money and no longer need to work.
Retirement for some people is like that, but retirement is also when someone hits the retirement age and gets social security benefits.

but considering we can't just get rid of welfare
I think it's possible to do this.  Low income people merely need to be shown where the better jobs are and they would go to those better jobs, thereby eliminating their need for welfare.

The combination of wage destruction
History confirms that wages won't get destroyed.  A common fear of hiring women during WWII was that they would cut wages by 50%.  This did not happen, and because of the huge influx of female workers, the US economy skyrocketed.  I think a similar thing would happen with these immigrants.
#26
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't advocate for more laws lol that's what is currently happening with the dummycrats, do try to keep up.  they are the party of restrictions and laws, they even try to push for censorship in the guise of hate speech laws.

obviously you don't know or understand what a pragmatic libertarian is.

If immigration was reformed, then they wouldn't be illegal. Problem solved. 
open borders or no restrictions is not a reform

you should examine the financial examples with some of the cities that raised their minimum wages to $15 and see how they fared.

Here's the nothing, there is no free stuff, you get that right?  someone is paying for it right?

Buffalo schools try to keep pace with kids speaking 83 languages

where do you think the money comes from to pay for interpreters and all other needs?  the money fairey?

how about a school systems where the student population quickly increases because of illegals, they would need more teachers, infrastructure etc, again that's not free right?  We can add in food and medical assistance, toss in some other entitlements and you think even $15 would offset those increased costs?
You don't think with increase costs for a business via increased wages, they in turn wouldn't increase prices?  I mean it's simple to figure out.

why are prices for pretty much everything so expensive in California?  check out their gas and food etc.  Isn't it the wealthiest state in the U.S.?  so how could it also have the highest costs and no housing?


#27
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I don't advocate for more laws lol that's what is currently happening with the dummycrats, do try to keep up.
You are advocating for draconian restrictions to immigration. That is more restrictive laws. Try to keep up. 

obviously you don't know or understand what a pragmatic libertarian is.
I think those are opposite terms. 

open borders or no restrictions is not a reform
correct. And literally no one is advocating for that. It is a straw man argument right wing people use to make their argument seem valid. 

you should examine the financial examples with some of the cities that raised their minimum wages to $15 and see how they fared.
Because it becomes super easy for greedy corporations to move the job 1 town over. A nationwide law prevents that kind of dickishness. 

Here's the nothing, there is no free stuff, you get that right?  someone is paying for it right?
of course. We, as a society, collectively pay for government services. 

Buffalo schools try to keep pace with kids speaking 83 languages
so because people need services provided, we should just prevent people from coming to america? That is a dumb argument. 

where do you think the money comes from to pay for interpreters and all other needs?  the money fairey?
It comes from tax revenue. Tax revenue those children will generate once they gain an education and get a job. From someone who likes to claim financial things are super important, you seem shockingly unaware of what investment is. 

how about a school systems where the student population quickly increases because of illegals, they would need more teachers, infrastructure etc, again that's not free right?
correct. And those children will be a massive boost to the economy and pay back that investment many times over. 

We can add in food and medical assistance, toss in some other entitlements and you think even $15 would offset those increased costs?
You don't think with increase costs for a business via increased wages, they in turn wouldn't increase prices?  I mean it's simple to figure out.
you're right, it is very simple. An educated workforce earning wages they can afford to live off of create a much larger and stronger economy. This in turn greatly increases the tax base and more than pays for the investment. 

why are prices for pretty much everything so expensive in California?  check out their gas and food etc.  Isn't it the wealthiest state in the U.S.?  so how could it also have the highest costs and no housing?
that's capitalism for you. You seem to complain about and praise the system at the same time. It is baffling how you hold such contradictory thoughts as true in your head at the same time. 
#28
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
You are advocating for draconian restrictions to immigration. That is more restrictive laws.
nope not at all, consistent enforcement of current laws, not more.

And literally no one is advocating for that.
some of the candidates do.
so because people need services provided, we should just prevent people from coming to america? That is a dumb argument. 
if that means it inhibits or takes more money from citizens, then yes.
Tax revenue those children will generate once they gain an education and get a job.
lol yeah sure, how about legal citizens?  sure, some will, but how many?  enough to offset all the ones that won't generate a positive, rather than a drain?
And those children will be a massive boost to the economy and pay back that investment many times over. 
sure like the trickle down economy that didn't work either, we have massive debt but you are thinking generations into the future while the debt climbs and there is no guarantee that will be a boost with increased automation etc.
This in turn greatly increases the tax base and more than pays for the investment. 
not exactly, all that really matters is what you have to spend, not so much what you earn, also purchasing power.  $15 per hour don't mean shit if gas is $10 a gallon, milk is $5 etc.
it's no different when the price of gas spiked, trucking companies raised their prices due to increased costs as did the companies who used them to also offset increased costs, increase wages is an increased cost, you should expect prices will increase to offset those costs just like any other cost.  that and small businesses will close.  I fail to see how this would be beneficial.
what about the people currently making $5 above minimum, do you think they will make $20?  I think their pay will stay the same but their purchasing power will be less because of the increased costs that will happen.
You seem to complain about and praise the system at the same time. It is baffling how you hold such contradictory thoughts as true in your head at the same time. 
really?  hmm while I consider it the best system it's not perfect so it would make sense and be logical to praise what you like about it and complain about the parts you don't.  Which economic system is all or nothing for you?  which one do you find perfect and have no complaints with?  I'm just dying to know.












#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
nope not at all, consistent enforcement of current laws, not more.
consistent enforcement of broken, draconian laws. Yes we agree you are advocating for more government control and restrictions. 

some of the candidates do.
lol who? Literally none of them advocate for open borders. 

if that means it inhibits or takes more money from citizens, then yes.
oh, so no children should go to school. no roads should be built. there should be no military. All of those things inhibit or take money from citizens. 

lol yeah sure, how about legal citizens?  sure, some will, but how many?  enough to offset all the ones that won't generate a positive, rather than a drain?
i honestly don't think there is any coherent thought in here. children of immigrants grow up to be adults. they are now normal citizens they same as you. they add to society in countless ways. That is one of america's primary strengths. 

sure like the trickle down economy that didn't work either,
trickle down economics relies on charitible rich people deciding to do things they wouldn't normally do. Obviously it fails. Immigration just relies on people living their lives. Which obviously they are going to do. 

we have massive debt but you are thinking generations into the future while the debt climbs and there is no guarantee that will be a boost with increased automation etc.
So i am thinking of america's future while you are thinking about... I honestly don't know what you are thinking about. It could be racism, it could just be a hatred of poor people or the idea of community in general. It's hard to tell, you are a bit all over the place. 

not exactly, all that really matters is what you have to spend, not so much what you earn, also purchasing power.  $15 per hour don't mean shit if gas is $10 a gallon, milk is $5 etc.
This is overly simplistic break down. You are assuming that workers making a living wage would drive up all prices. That simply isn't true. 

it's no different when the price of gas spiked, trucking companies raised their prices due to increased costs as did the companies who used them to also offset increased costs, increase wages is an increased cost, you should expect prices will increase to offset those costs just like any other cost.  that and small businesses will close.  I fail to see how this would be beneficial.
A flawed comparison. When fuel prices went up, fuel companies made way more money. You are comparing the cost of a commodity to the cost of a service. They are very different things. 

what about the people currently making $5 above minimum, do you think they will make $20?  I think their pay will stay the same but their purchasing power will be less because of the increased costs that will happen.
If you believe in capitalism, then yes that is what would happen. if those owners want to keep their skilled laborers, then they would need to pay more. if, like me, you think capitalism is broken, then the owners would try to pay their workers as little as they can get away with. In that case we need much stronger unions so that workers can fight for proper wages. Hopefully, with a president Bernie Sanders that will happen.

Which economic system is all or nothing for you?  which one do you find perfect and have no complaints with?  I'm just dying to know.
social democracy. which is almost what america has now. A capitalist system to promote competition and growth with strong government regulations to ensure that growth and competition is healthy and in the best interest of society and the nation. It is the best parts of capitalism while putting breaks on the horrible side effects that come with it. 
Topic's author
#30
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Department of Education? Unconstitutional.
lol no. The constitution doesn't say the government doesn't have the power to do that.


Allow me to introduce the Constitution to you, my good sir. Amendment X is often ignored by your party:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Education was not a power given to the federal government, nor denied to the states. Therefore, the federal government has no place in education.

So, I don't know why you add statements like this:

 It isn't explicitly included one way or the other. If you want to say that any power not granted by the constitution shouldn't be had by the government 
^_^

It should be "had by the government", just not the federal government.