Tim in vermont – “Makes you just have a warm fuzzy to see the anti Arizona immigration law demonstrators give gang signs.”
108 Replies to “How Do You Say “Deport Me” In Sign Language?”
“To answer your question, it is still totally in the rights of the employer to hire whoever, but it would seem pretty odd to pick the inferior employee in either case.”
Not so odd if the employer is saving thousands of dollars in salary. However, that is not the real philosophical problem. The problem arises when the employer acts upon his right and it proves inexpedient for government. A case in point is the example of both Canada and the US in the run up to WWII.
“The Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) implemented US Executive Order 8802, requiring that companies with government contracts not to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. It was intended to help African Americans and other minorities obtain jobs in the homefront industry. On June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) by signing Executive Order 8802, which stated, “there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin.”
Objectivists reject positive rights. The employer should be allowed to hire whomever, yet is forced by the state to embrace quotas based upon the collective. Freedom is denied because of the multi-ethnic nature of the society.
“Has a nation with a closed borders policy ever risen to greatness?”
Greece and Rome were famous for handing out citizenships like penny candy at a parade …Not!
(I had to use the irony marker because I am not sure that CT understands irony.)
Since when is the choice “Closed” or “Open Borders”?
Just so I understand the conservative argument here:
1. Illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal. Circular logic anyone?
2. Illegal immigration is bad because they don’t pay any taxes. But if they were let in legally, wouldn’t they pay taxes? More circular logic.
3. Illegal immigrants “steal” jobs from Americans because they offer their labour below the minimum wage. So do immigrants cause unemployment or does the minimum wage cause unemployment? Anyone steeped in econ 101 should know the answer to that question.
4. A nation has the right to restrict immigration. Do nations have rights or do individuals have them?
5. Am I missing any other “arguments”?
One last thing:
There seems to be some confusion as to “rights” and “choices” with regards to employment. No one has a right to a job. The employer, however, has the right to CHOOSE to hire (or not hire) whomever they please. Why? Because it’s their capital at risk. Property rights anyone? By preventing employers from hiring Mexican workers, the gov’t is violating employers’ property rights. See how easy it was to integrate choice and rights?
Charles,
How exactly is your system implemented? Is it a democracy? Does open borders assume open voting rights? I just want some details.
Cytotoxic: “@Everyone who disagrees with me: you are all wrong…”
That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve seen all day. Whatever you say, Napoleon….
charles/cyto – your arguments are fallacious. We are not making a ‘conservative’ argument but a rational and logical argument.
1. Immigration without permission from the state is illegal, i.e., bad. That’s not a circular argument. Think.
2. Illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes; legal immigrants do pay taxes. This is not a circular argument. It isn’t an argument but a statement of fact.
You are missing a key premise, which is that an illegal immigrant is NOT a legal immigrant and can’t become one unless they apply to the state for admission. Think.
3. Your third set of points is, like your second set, missing a key premise and is inserting a fallacious premise of: immigrants cause unemployment or minimum wage causes unemployment. This fallacious premise is a red herring and has nothing to do with the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are able to work below minimum wages because they escape the automatic payroll deductions.
Your red herring premise, with its Either-Or setup is false.
4. And, yet again, you are mixing up your terms. Nations most certainly have rights; these are found in their constitution and laws. HUMAN rights belong to individuals; STATE or NATIONAL RIGHTS belong to states. Think.
5. No, charles/cyto, again, you leave out salient terms. The issue is not the right to hire Mexican workers but the fact that the employer does not have the right to hire an illegal immigrant and avoid state and federal taxes.
Oh, and charles/cyto – you still haven’t answered my questions about Mexico and its offloading of its lowest class, and why the US taxpayer should support people who pay no taxes.
You know, using a different name is an evasion of responsibility. Why aren’t you accountable for your opinions? You don’t answer questions, your opinions are illogical, your terminology is mixed up. And you change your name to avoid accountability! Fun; I agree with revjshaft.
I am pretty sure that liberals and libertarians are cut of the same cloth, but have come to exactly the opposite conclusions on state power. Both assume away, more like just ignore, facts about human nature and the forces of natural selection on nations that have held for over a million years. Some maintain that they are simply blind to these factors, and being blind to them, proclaim all the more loudly they they don’t exists when they see others around them who do perceive them, conservatives who are driven not just by rationality, but by a sympathy for human nature. Lefties solve the problem of human nature by digging massive graves and filling them with the “imperfect.” Libertarians solve this problem by ignoring it.
“To answer your question, it is still totally in the rights of the employer to hire whoever, but it would seem pretty odd to pick the inferior employee in either case.”
Not so odd if the employer is saving thousands of dollars in salary. However, that is not the real philosophical problem. The problem arises when the employer acts upon his right and it proves inexpedient for government. A case in point is the example of both Canada and the US in the run up to WWII.
“The Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) implemented US Executive Order 8802, requiring that companies with government contracts not to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. It was intended to help African Americans and other minorities obtain jobs in the homefront industry. On June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) by signing Executive Order 8802, which stated, “there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin.”
Objectivists reject positive rights. The employer should be allowed to hire whomever, yet is forced by the state to embrace quotas based upon the collective. Freedom is denied because of the multi-ethnic nature of the society.
“Has a nation with a closed borders policy ever risen to greatness?”
Greece and Rome were famous for handing out citizenships like penny candy at a parade …Not!
(I had to use the irony marker because I am not sure that CT understands irony.)
Since when is the choice “Closed” or “Open Borders”?
Just so I understand the conservative argument here:
1. Illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal. Circular logic anyone?
2. Illegal immigration is bad because they don’t pay any taxes. But if they were let in legally, wouldn’t they pay taxes? More circular logic.
3. Illegal immigrants “steal” jobs from Americans because they offer their labour below the minimum wage. So do immigrants cause unemployment or does the minimum wage cause unemployment? Anyone steeped in econ 101 should know the answer to that question.
4. A nation has the right to restrict immigration. Do nations have rights or do individuals have them?
5. Am I missing any other “arguments”?
One last thing:
There seems to be some confusion as to “rights” and “choices” with regards to employment. No one has a right to a job. The employer, however, has the right to CHOOSE to hire (or not hire) whomever they please. Why? Because it’s their capital at risk. Property rights anyone? By preventing employers from hiring Mexican workers, the gov’t is violating employers’ property rights. See how easy it was to integrate choice and rights?
Charles,
How exactly is your system implemented? Is it a democracy? Does open borders assume open voting rights? I just want some details.
Cytotoxic: “@Everyone who disagrees with me: you are all wrong…”
That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve seen all day. Whatever you say, Napoleon….
charles/cyto – your arguments are fallacious. We are not making a ‘conservative’ argument but a rational and logical argument.
1. Immigration without permission from the state is illegal, i.e., bad. That’s not a circular argument. Think.
2. Illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes; legal immigrants do pay taxes. This is not a circular argument. It isn’t an argument but a statement of fact.
You are missing a key premise, which is that an illegal immigrant is NOT a legal immigrant and can’t become one unless they apply to the state for admission. Think.
3. Your third set of points is, like your second set, missing a key premise and is inserting a fallacious premise of: immigrants cause unemployment or minimum wage causes unemployment. This fallacious premise is a red herring and has nothing to do with the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are able to work below minimum wages because they escape the automatic payroll deductions.
Your red herring premise, with its Either-Or setup is false.
4. And, yet again, you are mixing up your terms. Nations most certainly have rights; these are found in their constitution and laws. HUMAN rights belong to individuals; STATE or NATIONAL RIGHTS belong to states. Think.
5. No, charles/cyto, again, you leave out salient terms. The issue is not the right to hire Mexican workers but the fact that the employer does not have the right to hire an illegal immigrant and avoid state and federal taxes.
Oh, and charles/cyto – you still haven’t answered my questions about Mexico and its offloading of its lowest class, and why the US taxpayer should support people who pay no taxes.
You know, using a different name is an evasion of responsibility. Why aren’t you accountable for your opinions? You don’t answer questions, your opinions are illogical, your terminology is mixed up. And you change your name to avoid accountability! Fun; I agree with revjshaft.
I am pretty sure that liberals and libertarians are cut of the same cloth, but have come to exactly the opposite conclusions on state power. Both assume away, more like just ignore, facts about human nature and the forces of natural selection on nations that have held for over a million years. Some maintain that they are simply blind to these factors, and being blind to them, proclaim all the more loudly they they don’t exists when they see others around them who do perceive them, conservatives who are driven not just by rationality, but by a sympathy for human nature. Lefties solve the problem of human nature by digging massive graves and filling them with the “imperfect.” Libertarians solve this problem by ignoring it.