At last, Australia has decided that enough is enough and suspended the processing of applications from Afghan and Sri lankan "refugees

http://www.news.com.au/national/government-suspends-processing-of-sri-lankan-afghan-asylum-claims/story-e6frfkvr-1225851776067

This comes in the face of the arrival of a large number of boats and with Sri Lankans beginning to take the direct route.

I'm cynical however, since I think Krudd has only taken this action because he knows that illegal immigrants will sink his boat at the next election due in about six months. If there is one thing that makes Australians cranky it is queue jumpers and the attitude here is,

we don't need any more unskilled labour,

we would rather help those who have been in camps for years

Immigration is fuelling interest rate rises which means the average Australian is paying twice for refugees

and of course the classic John Howard statement we will decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come

All of this might be a little inconvenient for some but our advice is live peacefully where you are and we will try to help you

Sure would be nice if the US was surrounded by a large moat.


All of this might be a little inconvenient for some but our advice is live peacefully where you are and we will try to help you

This isn't exactly the same issue. Are they immigrants looking to work or refugees?

Sure would be nice if the US was surrounded by a large moat.

This isn't exactly the same issue. Are they immigrants looking to work or refugees?

Well you do have a big moat, to complete it all that is needed is to dig a deep trench on your northern and southern border, would make an excellent nation building project assuring millions of work. You could even pay the Mexicans and Canadians to do it for you, they might even do it for free. You guys don't need a big moat, all you need is some will power and backbone. You have an army, use it for more than invading someoneelse's country

Well, Tom, a high percentage of them have their applications denied so we can only judge they are economic migrants and wouldn't be allowed in under the usual rules. Let's face it when it suits them they are refugees, but they don't pass the I have left everything and have nothing test. The people from Sri Lanka are Tamils, they lost the war in Sri Lanka and it isn't convenient to stay any more but they don't want to go to India either. No, they think Australia is big and empty and streets paved with gold. Fact, is all our manufacturing industries are gone and with them the jobs. The Afghans are those who have money, ditto, etc. and like in the US there is an industry in transporting these people

Sure would be nice if the US was surrounded by a large moat. Hello:

Spoken like a straight white Christian fellow who (1) sees the America he grew up with changing in ways he doesn't like, (2) who demigraphically KNOWS that the white man, in short order, will no longer BE the majority, and (3) forgets that he himself is the product of immigrants to a land of brown people.

excon

Well my relatives did indeed cross that moat and were legally processed in before they entered . They didn't jump fences or crawl through tunnels .

I would ask you if think a nation has a right to (1) control it's borders (2) to decide who should emigrate into it

But I already know you don't believe in nations or borders.

but I already know you don't believe in nations or borders.Hello again, tom:

They ARE old fashioned concepts. Borders were cool when we had a reason to keep people out - like a lack of resources... But, the world has enough resources to take care of everybody. So, the only reason to keep people out these days is to perpetuate those old fashioned ideas.

excon

Well there you have it . Constitutions are universal regardless if people from other lands actually want to live under them, and nations are obsolete.

Hello again, tom:

. Borders were cool when we had a reason to keep people out - like a lack of resources... They ARE old fashioned concepts But, the world has enough resources to take care of everybody. So, the only reason to keep people out these days is to perpetuate those old fashioned ideas.

excon

So ex, I can extrapolate and deduce you are in favour of one world government and no national borders, that means administration by the UN or something similar. Good bye US insurance companies, hello socialised medicine, goodbye US military, goodbye US tax system and hello higher taxes, goodbye cheap gas and hello smaller cars, goodbye guns and hello police state.

So ex, I can extrapolate and deduce you are in favour of one world governmentHello clete:

It's not a matter of whether I'm in favor of it, or not. It's a matter of whether our old fashioned ideas work in the 21st century. In my view, we're hanging on to worn out concepts. War is just ONE of those concepts. In fact, given the state of the world, I see lots MORE problems stemming from our insistence in "conserving" the status quo, rather than adapting to change.

Additionally, whether you or I are in favor of it, or not, the world IS moving in that direction. We're better off dealing with it, instead of pretending it isn't happening. I don't necessarily see the downsides to it that you do, though. I'm an optimist.

THIS little thingy here, called the internet is a major contributor to that phenomenon. IT, all by itself, made borders obsolete.

excon

PS> Look. I'm as conservative as anybody else. I WANT things to be like they were when I was growing up. But, they ain't, and all the wishing in the world ain't going to make it so.

I say round up ALL the illegals and march them to a border... or drop them off a boat on a shore nearest their land. At gunpoint. If they refuse to go... shoot them.


Those who followed the law and are here legally can stay as long as their papers are up to date. And because they followed the rules and the law, will be welcome here.

It's not a matter of whether I'm in favor of it, or not. It's a matter of whether our old fashioned ideas work in the 21st century. In my view, we're hanging on to worn out concepts. War is just ONE of those concepts.

Is that 18th -century treaty between the 13 States another?

Hello clete:

It's not a matter of whether I'm in favor of it, or not. It's a matter of whether our old fashioned ideas work in the 21st century. In my view, we're hanging on to worn out concepts. .

Okay ex so you have embraced socialism and one world government but don't think the US will be that government because the history of these things tells us the powerful are submerged, and, of course, no one is going to sign on to that worn out concept of the US constitution. People want a government capable of acting not one parallised by its own parochial issues

okay ex so you have embraced socialism and one world government Hello again, clete:

Actually, I don't see why the one word government can't be capitalistic. Buying and selling stuff has NOTHING to do with borders.

If these changes come to pass, I'm sure that government is going to look a lot different than any we're familiar with. I'm just tired of wars. They're obsolete. Look, when we were cave men, we fought over our resources. When we were cavemen we had territories. I'm just suggesting that maybe we've grown out of that mentality.

Look, you don't have to convince me that most people don't want to be bothered with a new way of looking at things. I got it.

excon

I see the world going in a different direction .If anything ,I see a movement towards smaller "tribal units " . Even here in the US we are polarizing into "red " and "blue" .Look at the EU ,I do not have strong confidence it will last ;and the UN has been next to useless as a governing body. The Russian empire fell apart and they are consolidating it again through sheer brute force .In the ummah ethnic and sectarian differences are difficult to bridge .

China is getting tremendous pressure from it's conquered nations ,and NATO appears to be on life support .

Nihilist movements like the anti-globalization have mobilized on the net .We seek our own and reenforcement of our own on the Net .Of that there is plenty .Is it really making the world smaller ?

One Wold government is a lovechild of socialists... wanting to redistribute the wealth of those who earn it and give it to those who for any number of reasons don't.

Who would appoint that dictator of the planet? Vote for one? Right... China would simply take over by telling its people who they WILL vote for. They don't even elect their own leaders. India? They have a huge number of poor who would like a chunk of someone else's wealth...

Besides who anywhere should have the right to vote themselves a share of someone else's earned wealth?

One Wold Governments are a fantasy of those who want what others have earned without having to make the effort themselves.

Also popular with those who demand entitlements from a government they don't pay any taxes to.

Every country has the right to determine who can and can not cross its own borders... and to remove any who violate that law and enter anyway.

Look at the UN... they expect the USA to pay for MOST of their follies... and look how they treat us. Let their other members fund it all. THey are a worthless drain of money.

Hello again, clete:

Actually, I don't see why the one word government can't be capitalistic. Buying and selling stuff has NOTHING to do with borders.

If these changes come to pass, I'm sure that government is going to look a lot different than any we're familiar with. I'm just tired of wars. They're obsolete. Look, when we were cave men, we fought over our resources. When we were cavemen we had territories. I'm just suggesting that maybe we've grown out of that mentality.

Look, you don't have to convince me that most people don't want to be bothered with a new way of looking at things. I got it.

excon

Ex you have just demonstrated how americans have no understanding of socialist principles, there is no reason why capitalism cannot coexist with socialism. You confuse socialism which is concern for the individual with communism which is suppression of the individual. As to doing away with borders I think there are good reasons to keep different cultures apart because there are serious incompatiabilities.

Ex you have just demonstrated how americans have no understanding of socialist principles, there is no reason why capitalism cannot coexist with socialism. You confuse socialism which is concern for the individual with communism which is suppression of the individual. As to doing away with borders I think there are good reasons to keep different cultures apart because there are serious incompatiabilities.

Your definitions don't seem to match up exactly with the dictionary's, Clete.


so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


com·mu·nism   /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Both seem to invest the means of production in public hands, rather than private. The individual doesn't seem to come into the picture very much at all.

Your definitions don't seem to match up exactly with the dictionary's, Clete.

Both seem to invest the means of production in public hands, rather than private. The individual doesn't seem to come into the picture very much at all.

Sometimes definitions don't match reality and using a Marxist definition is ridiculous since such definitions carry things to extremes and we all know that is undesirable. It is often suggested I live in a socialist state but perhaps I just live in an organised economy which will no longer allow the extreme excesses of capitalism. The means of production can be in private hands so long as wages are fairly regulated and disputes settled without bully boy tactics employed in the US in the early twentieth century, however the more we export our industries the more academic owning the means of production becomes.

I prefer the definition found in wikipedia
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation;often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.[

Communism is indeed a form of socialism . Both are concerned with the collective . Communism takes it a step further in that the collective is international . Nazi in contrast was a collective within the state.Therein is the primary dispute between the two forms of socialism and the reason why they are not polar "right /left "opposites as they have been so frequently portrayed .Both are left wing ideologies and both are tyranny to the degree they are practiced .

And I don't think Ex's original comment made reference to an economic system but rather to political boundries.

And I don't think Ex's original comment made reference to an economic system but rather to political boundries.Hello again, tom:

Exactamundo, tom. I tried to point out earlier that I found NO rules stating that one world government MUST be socialistic or tyrannical. Nobody was listening, except you. Everybody else's knees jerked. Again, I don't know why a world ruled by one government couldn't be a free, safe and prosperous world. Capitalism DOES work, after all. Indeed, capitalism even flourishes in societies where the people have "socialized" some of society's risks.

excon

I agree and that's when and where the universal nature of our constitution would apply .But frankly I don't see that happening anytime soon .There are more cultures of the world who do not agree in human rights at all.

At last, Australia has decided that enough is enough and suspended the processing of applications from Afghan and Sri lankan "refugees

Government suspends processing of Sri Lankan, Afghan asylum claims | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/government-suspends-processing-of-sri-lankan-afghan-asylum-claims/story-e6frfkvr-1225851776067)

This comes in the face of the arrival of a large number of boats and with Sri Lankans beginning to take the direct route.

I'm cynical however, since I think Krudd has only taken this action because he knows that illegal immigrants will sink his boat at the next election due in about six months. If there is one thing that makes Australians cranky it is queue jumpers and the attitude here is,

we don't need any more unskilled labour,

we would rather help those who have been in camps for years

Immigration is fuelling interest rate rises which means the average Australian is paying twice for refugees

and of course the classic John Howard statement we will decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come

All of this might be a little inconvenient for some but our advice is live peacefully where you are and we will try to help you


Gee, I wish America would have had such a luxury as to deny illegal aliens (or refugees or asylum seekers) into this country a long time ago.

Granted, Australia has very limited resources and is rapidly running out of water. The interior of your country is barren and arid although most people don't realize this and think they're plenty of room for them.

Australia can round up all the undesirables and deport them much easier than America can ever do.

I don't condem your country from not wanting more people regardless of where they come from. Many years ago back in the early 1970's my late mother and I were seriously thinking of moving to Australia. We found to our horror that since my mother was over 50 years old she would not be allowed to immigrate there. WOW talk about picky back then! And she was an RN and well educated but nope, Australia didn't want her to move there.

Australia can round up all the undesirables and deport them much easier than America can ever do.

I don't condem your country from not wanting more people regardless of where they come from. Many years ago back in the early 1970's my late mother and I were seriously thinking of moving to Australia. We found to our horror that since my mother was over 50 years old she would not be allowed to immigrate there. WOW talk about picky back then! And she was an RN and well educated but nope, Australia didn't want her to move there.

That must have been in the days before shortage of nurses, usually older people are allowed to come for family reconciliation. I don't know why you think it is easier for us to find the undesirables, there are large numbers of illegals here, people who have overstayed their holiday visas, we don't have a green card system like yours and from what I can tell many of the criminals are imports
http://www.news.com.au/national/riot-squad-braces-as-underbelly-plays-out-in-nightclub-strip/story-e6frfkvr-1225852321064
And it seems like half the population of New Zealand is here. The kiwi's are to us like the hispanics are to you, they cross the Tasman and just don't go home.

Let's correct any misimpression, we want people but we need talent, we have enough camel drivers and taxi drivers and criminals, so we want trained people because we don't have jobs available for labourers and process workers, we also want people who are prepared to live outside the major cities and help develop the country, not people who want to turn our cities into ghettos just to be here. Refugees are a problem and there are only so many places, they require more support than other arrivals.

It's nice to find someone who understands that Australia is an arid place, no big rivers and plentiful water here as in Europe and America

I am 110% behind Australia and any other country wanting to control who is in their land, and to take initiative to remove both those who have entered illegally, or overstayed their visa, etc.

Every country has the right to set their own limits and impose them. And to remove anyone who does not follow the laws in effect.

I am 110% behind Australia and any other country wanting to control who is in their land, and to take initiative to remove both those who have entered illegally, or overstayed their visa, etc.

Each and every country has the right to set their own limits and impose them. And to remove anyone who does not follow the laws in effect.Hello again, smoothy:

Me? I'd go after the employers who invited them in. The meat packing industry put ads in Mexican papers encouraging the very lawbreaking you say you abhor. But, like any good righty, I'm not surprised you let them off the hook.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Me? I'd go after the employers who invited them in. The meat packing industry put ads in Mexican papers encouraging the very lawbreaking you say you abhor. But, like any good righty, I'm not surprised you let them off the hook.

exconReally, where did I do that? Care to point out a link or post?. After all... the Government isn't doing its part at all to keeping them out in the first place... or sending them back when they are found. They really do very little of the sending them back.

In fact locally, when Prince William County, VA cracked down on Illegals last year in a big way... the Feds chastized them for it.

After all it's the Lefties that are helping the Mexicans crossing the borders with maps... water stations and legal aid once they get here. Or calling to "Give" them green cards after they broke a number of Federal, local and state laws.

Plenty of blame to go around and it isn't just with the employers. Those that are helping them get here, or defending their so called "right" to be here in violation of the law share an even bigger part.

Really, where did I do that?. Hello again, smoothy:

I didn't notice any ranting against employers from you - just the illegals they hire. So, tell me, then. What WOULD you do to the employers?

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I didn't notice any ranting against employers from you - just the illegals they hire. So, tell me, then. What WOULD you do to the employers?

excon

Why are YOU fixating on ONLY the employers when it's the left that is going out of their way to prevent illegals fropm being sent OUT of the country? How about also attacking those who fascilitate their coming here, those helping them stay here... and those in the government who won't send them back whenever they get caught here.


Lots of blame to go around and fixating on only ONE of them isn't going to do didly squat...

Because... in case you aren't aware... many of them have fake ID's ( a LOT in fact)... that Joe Small Business Owner has no way of determining if they are legit or not.

How about focusing on people that RENT to them... provide pro-bono legal services, who prevent them from being deported? THey share an equal if not LARGER portion of the blame.

And since you don't notice these things... nobody is defending the employers who hire illegals without papers and pay under the table. You just refuse to recognise the liberal organisations that HELP illegals as being a problem. Including the Government.

If they got NO assistance... and people did their jobs... they would not want to be here... and would not stay if they bothered to come here at all.

I would go hard against any employer who knowingly hires illegals... period.

However ;what this country has done is make the employer the enforcement arm of immigration law and that is not right.
Every employee that gets hired ;if the hiring is done right ,needs to get the documentation and needs to confirm that the documentation is not fraudulent . And it is the employer that is tasked with that responsibility .
This is needed only because the Federal Government has decided that it will not enforce the laws it has on the books . Reform ? Heck we don't even need go as far as that. What is needed is a vigorous attempt by the government to enforce existing law. Yes ,illegal immigration is a problem .But we don't know to what degree it needs reform because existing law has not been tried .

Hello again, smoothy:

I carefully read what you said AGAIN. You gave the employers a pass. You said it's not their fault. Or do we have another misunderstanding?

I can read pretty good.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I carefully read what you said AGAIN. You gave the employers a pass. You said it's not their fault. Or do we have another misunderstanding?

I can read pretty good.

exconReally... Quote it... because I didn't give anyone a pass. Your blame is solely on employers... and I am saying employers are only a tiny part of the problem.


Also since you want to exclusively blame ONLY employers... exactly how are they supposed to know a false ID from a valid one... and what mechanism is in place that would allow them to do so. Since many of these fake ID's don't actually have dreamed up numbers... but valid numbers that belong to someone else... which at face value, constitutes ID theft and violations of other statutes... and no blame is put towards those who are helping them get these fake, ID's, Defending them from deportation when they are determined to be here illegally, or helping them while they are here... not considering helping them get here in the first place.

And all of those are committing a far greater crime than hiring someone that actually had papers... (particularly if they are determined later to be false).
Not all employers of illegals knowingly hire people without papers... and then pay cash under the table to keep their existence off the books.

I actually know a couple small employers that have exactly this problem. Finding out people with papers actually had fake ones... even though they apeared legit. And in each case... 20-30% of those with "papers" were fraudulent, discovered later. And not all are discovered.



Now that is NOT giving anyone a free pass... because they have to have a way to determing legal from illegal... and THAT would have to be Federal level as SSI is a Federally issued ID. And that agency ultimately has to bear the responsibility of determinations and those it misses.

What's wrong with illegals when found without valid papers... being transported to the border after fingerprinting, biometrics and photos are taken first within 48 hours and NEVER let loose on a promise to appear... which nobody with 2 brains cells ever does.

And WHY do taxpayers have to pay for illeglas healthcare at emergency rooms... and why are their kids entitled to a free education at OUR expense? And why are children of illegals automatically given citizenship?

And why do taxpayers have to pay for foodstamps given to illegals, or illegals taking up public housing while real Americans are on a waiting list.

Obama's Aunt in Boston is an example it DOES happen all the time.


And it's the Democrats that have been fighting against a standardized national ID for a LONG time. Which would go a long way towards this problem and others.

We are off topic for Australia, but I'm sure many of thise issues will apply to them as well.

Have you guys ever considered using the tax system to help control the problem, 1. every employee must be able to supply a valid tax ID, otherwise 2. 50% withholding, with 3. inspection of records and 4. your tax office reporting to Immigration the detail of any person in the system, employer or employee where the ID doesn't match up. You can modify the system so where an illegal is paid the employer doesn't get a deduction for those wages. I reckon you would fix the problem overnight.

It all comes down to enforcement. When you have municipalities like we do declaring themselves sanctuary for the illegals at the same time you have other sections of the country zealousy enforcing them
,then it's tough to have a consistent national policy .

As far as employers taking the lead on being the front line enforcement tool ;it just isn't right. They should be able to assume that anyone seeking employment is already here legally .

It all comes down to enforcement. When you have municipalities like we do declaring themselves sanctuary for the illegals at the same time you have other sections of the country zealousy enforcing them
,then it's tough to have a consistent national policy .

As far as employers taking the lead on being the front line enforcement tool ;it just aint right. They should be able to assume that anyone seeking employment is already here legally .

Tom I hear what you are saying but there is a difference between hiring, not suggesting employers shouldn't do that and where I come from there is no enforceable prevention on hiring, just common sense, but collection of taxes and registration of employees (workers) has nothing to do with employers per see. The way it works is this, do you have an ID? No, then you get a penelty withholding tax. If you can't work for this rate then you have made the decision not the employer. We have the same system working with contractors and the GST. The employer has an obligation to collect withholding whether you are legal or not. It's just a compliance issue.

Sometimes I wonder, who is actually running that country over there, the government or the local politicians? Like you elect people to do a job then tie their hands. Do you have 50,000 nationals parks or one country?

Why are employers the villain in contemporary society? They're supposed to verify I.D.'s, provide health insurance, pay for your old age, make up more jobs out of thin air, wipe your bum and give you a ride.

How about letting them make or do something and sell it?

The entirety of the problems with Western Society can be boiled down to people wanting to do someone else's job instead of their own. Lawyers want to be insurance agents, Insurance agents want to be Doctors, Doctors want to be legislators, legislators want to be executives, executives want to be preachers, preachers want to be lawyers, and round and round it goes.

Ambition and altruism are nice, but why can't they leave me the heck alone!?

OK, rant over, continue your discussion please.

Sometimes I wonder, who is actually running that country over there, the government or the local politicians? Like you elect people to do a job then tie their hands. Do you have 50,000 nationals parks or one country?
Yeah that's the weakness and the strength of federalism. Presumably it prevents the national government from having too much power. But;sometimes the legitimate authority of the national government(like immigration policy ) gets subverted by regional decisions.

Cats ;even worse. Lawyers want to be law makers. That's a conflict of interest in my book.

Tom I hear what you are saying but there is a difference between hiring, not suggesting employers shouldn't do that and where I come from there is no enforceable prevention on hiring, just common sense, but collection of taxes and registration of employees (workers) has nothing to do with employers per see. The way it works is this, do you have an ID? no, then you get a penelty withholding tax. If you can't work for this rate then you have made the decision not the employer. We have the same system working with contractors and the GST. The employer has an obligation to collect withholding whether you are legal or not. It's just a compliance issue.

Sometimes I wonder, who is actually running that country over there, the government or the local politicians? Like you elect people to do a job then tie their hands. Do you have 50,000 nationals parks or one country?

Problem with the tax end you mention is what the employer is legally allowed to do... if they don't follow the guidelines they would be in bigger trouble than the illegal is. Not saying its not a good idea, but taken on its face, who will stop them from pocketing that 50% and not forwarding it to the taxing authorities. Particularly since in our case (USA) most of the costs incurred by illegals is on the Backs of the towns, or state and not the federal government.

Then if they actually enforced the laws on the books... there would be no problem.

We need to de-incentivise (sp) their being here. If their kids could not enroll in schools, if Emergency rooms required cash BEFORE treatment, if they faced confiscation of property and jail for driving uninsured and unliscensed... and actually prosecute them for using OTHER peoples Social security number or false ID. And to STOP giving amnesty to illegals as a reward for breaking our laws.

Then they may decide its not worth the risk to be here illegally.


I have no trouble with LEGAL immigration... only with thoise who feel the laws and rules don't apply to them.

Why are employers the villain in contemporary society? They're supposed to verify I.D.'s, provide health insurance, pay for your old age, make up more jobs out of thin air, wipe your bum and give you a ride.

How about letting them make or do something and sell it?

The entirety of the problems with Western Society can be boiled down to people wanting to do someone else's job instead of their own. Lawyers want to be insurance agents, Insurance agents want to be Doctors, Doctors want to be legislators, legislators want to be executives, executives want to be preachers, preachers want to be lawyers, and round and round it goes.

Ambition and altruism are nice, but why can't they leave me the heck alone!?!

OK, rant over, continue your discussion please.

Yes I agree some strange concepts have gotten loose in the US, and very incompatiable with capitalism. You could call it socialism by stealth. You shouldn't characterise what happens in the US with the rest of western society, however it should be recognised that professions who think they are the only ones who can handle an issue are a problem. All wisdom on a subject does not reside within the prerogative of a profession or with a politician for that matter.

Really.....Quote it....because I didn't give anyone a pass. Your blame is solely on employers....and I am saying employers are only a tiny part of the problemHello again, smoothy:

You again, diminish the role of the employer. The fact is, if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration. It's like blaming the hookers and giving the johns a pass. In fact, it takes TWO to tango.

But, contrary to what you say, I don't place the blame on the employers. I don't put it on the immigrants either. In fact, neither are the bad guys here. I put it on the government who didn't enforce the laws we had on the books for over 50 years. During that time, family's got established. Lives were changed. Things happened.

So, it does NO good to be mad at the government for doing this, and it makes no sense to be mad at either the employers or the workers. All they did, was what people do. They hire people, and people get hired. Given that it wasn't EITHER'S fault, we shouldn't punish either of them. I'm willing to give them BOTH amnesty.

You wingers, on the other hand, obviously want to give the employers a pass, with all your talk about enforcement, and you want to throw the immigrants OUT. It ain't right. It just ain't right.

excon

You wingers, on the other hand, obviously want to give the employers a pass, with all your talk about enforcement, and you wanna throw the immigrants OUT. It ain't right. It just ain't right.

excon

You have a point, Ex. Whose fault it is really no longer matters. How do you propose getting these (at a guess) millions of illegals onto the tax rolls?

They want to work - great. They want to send money to Mama in Oaxaca - beautiful. Get them to pay for the hospitals and schools and cops just like everybody else and stop making me do it for them. Yes, I mean the employers that actually pay the payroll tax, and Social Security tax, and all the other taxes that are called something else, like workers compensation insurance premiums that employers are required to carry in addition to the health insurance taxes we have to start paying.

You have a point, Ex. Whose fault it is really no longer matters. How do you propose getting these (at a guess) millions of illegals onto the tax rolls?Hello again, Cats:

Give 'em a piece of paper to sign, along with a social security card, saying they can stay as long as they pay taxes. Are they all going to pay their taxes then? I don't think so. That don't mean nothing. There's plenty of white people who don't pay their taxes either.

excon

There's plenty of white people who don't pay their taxes either.

excon

There's almost no one who pays their taxes, of any color. Their employers do.

Hello again, Cats:

Give 'em a piece of paper to sign, along with a social security card, saying they can stay as long as they pay taxes. Are they all gonna pay their taxes then? I don't think so. That don't mean nothing. There's plenty of white people who don't pay their taxes either.

excon

Leaving aside the unrecorded loss of tax revenue from illegals ;a little less than half the workforce pay no income taxes legally . The burden for financing the ever enlarging nanny state falls on roughly 53 % of the workforce. But it's even worse than that . The bottom 40% get tax credits that exceed their tax liabilities. The top 10% of income earners finance 73% of the government revenues.

The revenues don't come close to paying for the government the President "inheritted " let alone his massive expansion of the nannystate or the wealth transfer he envisions in his utopian mind. He has already flipped on his promise not to raise "middle class" taxes because he knows the pool of available money shrinks as the equation shifts and more Americans receive the goodies than pay for them .

Even the President understands the kitty is empty .He needs to expand the tax base and trick the lower 47% to pony up .
That is why they dusted off the corpse of Paul Volcker and have him promoting VAT ;a federal sales tax. Now a VAT would not be a terrible idea if the income tax was eliminated . But combined with the income tax it is a wealth grab by the government the likes of which we have not seen in this country.

Leaving aside the unrecorded loss of tax revenue from illegals ;a little less than half the workforce pay no income taxes legally . Hello tom:

Couple things.

There's NO lost tax revenue due to illegals. As a matter of fact, illegals pay MORE taxes than YOU do. As smoothy tells us, many illegals have phony ss numbers. As a consequence, they can't file a tax return to claim the overpayment that almost every single American gets to claim. So, the taxes that they overpaid and are due them, stays with the government...

You also bring up another popular Republican talking point. The right wing's intent is to bring attention to the fact that the rich are supporting the poor, and that's a bad thing. What they DON'T mention is what CAUSED it, though, and that's the disappearance of the middle class. Yup, it's a bad thing.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You again, diminish the role of the employer. The fact is, if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration. It's like blaming the hookers and giving the johns a pass. In fact, it takes TWO to tango.

But, contrary to what you say, I don't place the blame on the employers. I don't put it on the immigrants either. In fact, neither are the bad guys here. I put it on the government who didn't enforce the laws we had on the books for over 50 years. During that time, family's got established. Lives were changed. Things happened.

So, it does NO good to be mad at the government for doing this, and it makes no sense to be mad at either the employers or the workers. All they did, was what people do. They hire people, and people get hired. Given that it wasn't EITHER'S fault, we shouldn't punish either of them. I'm willing to give them BOTH amnesty.

You wingers, on the other hand, obviously want to give the employers a pass, with all your talk about enforcement, and you wanna throw the immigrants OUT. It ain't right. It just ain't right.

excon

Perhaps if you pulled your head OUT of your rectum, long enough to get some oxygen you will grasp this...

QUOTE where I give the employer a free pass... YOU made this claim so YOU either put up, or shut up.

Typical damned liberal making things up out of thin air when they don't have a legitimate argument.

Contrary to Your bizarre and typical liberal opinion, employers and banks are NOT responsible for everything bad in the world... and the Giovernment is not responsible for everything good, or can even fix what's broke.. much less have a right to butt into every facet of ones life.

If the damn government doesn't keep out the illegals, won't enforce laws that are already on the books... won't verify documents presented to employers (because the employer can't)... then it's the government that bears the brunt of the blame.


And here YOU go not blaming the criminals themselves... the Illegals.

THEY refused to follow the law to get a Visa or Green card... THEY feel they are special and the law doesn't apply to them...

I suppose Rapists, murderers and Child molestors aren't responsible for what THEY do either. You think it's the employers fault when the employee lies on their forms... the government doesn't catch it on a background check... and a child molester ends up in a school or daycare center? And that is different from an illegal using a fake ID exactly how?


You know not all illegals are hired in a 7-11 parking lot as day labor or paid in cash off the books. Not all employers KNOW they are illegal any more than someone who rents an apartment to them knows they are illegal if they have fake ID's. Which in itself is a crime. IF it was ever prosecuted.

Can YOU spot a real Green card from a good fake one? Have you even ever seen a green card? Can you determine a real Passport from a good fake? Exactly what training programs do they offer to employers to determine real and faked documents? I'm not aware of any.

Of course if a minority was REFUSED anything because of a suspected false ID... the ACLU and the democrat party would be ready to pounce with hate laws and discrimination charges... and civil rights lawsuits.

Perhaps if you pulled your head OUT of your rectum, long enough to get some oxigen you will grasp this...Hello again, smoothy:

I've been arguing with my right wing friends here for over 10 years. We disagree, AND we're still friends. You, on the other hand are disagreeable, and aren't fun to deal with. So, I won't.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I've been arguing with my right wing friends here for over 10 years. We disagree, AND we're still friends. You, on the other hand are disagreeable, and aren't fun to deal with. So, I won't.

excon

YOU are sitting here arguing I said something (giving employers a free ride)... post after post and refuse to present a quote to back it up.

THAT I find particularly irritating.

When I say something... thats fair game for debate in my book. But don't go and keep repeating I gave employers a free ride... which obviously can't be quoted... when I didn't. You aren't Dan Rather, and this isn't CBS.

There ARE some that seek out undocumented workers... but far more get caught up with illegals with falsified papers they thought WERE legal. Because I know both.

You don't blame the illegals... just the people that hire them... or those who won't enforce the laws...

What's wrong with laying the blame on the feet of the source of the problem itself. The Illegals. They ALL know they are illegal, and breaking the law. THEY are the root of the problem, and that's not giving anyone else that breaks the law a free ride saying that.

If Illegals left.. the illegal problem would cease... just as if drug addicts stopped using drugs... the drug problem would go away. Without a market for drugs.. the drug cartels would dry up.

As much as I hate China... they were really effective in dealing with the opium problem they had back in the day. Draconian for sure... but effective.

Whatever else is done with any crime.. its futile without focusing on the root issue in every case, being the person committing the crime. You can't blame a Bank for being the cause of a bank robbery... just because they have money, and let the robber in the front door. You blame the bank robber.


And that's a major flaw in the Politically correct liberal movement... they don't hold anyone responsible for their own actions. Its always someone else's fault.

THAT I find particularly irritating.Hello again, smoothy:

Go be irritated. 'S fine with me.

excon

the fact that the rich are supporting the poor, and that's a bad thing. Yup, it's a bad thing.

excon

Ex, do you live on planet Earth? The rich supporting the poor has been the objective of every taxation system in recent times. At one time it was the poor supporting the rich but that leads to revolution and large numbers of rich people dying. I am not against the rich supporting the poor as long as there is equity. The rich should actually do more because if the poor become prosperous their tax burden will become less

What they DON'T mention is what CAUSED it, though, and that's the disappearance of the middle class. Yup, it's a bad thing.

The shrinking middle class is one of the biggest myths the left uses.


I am not against the rich supporting the poor as long as there is equity.
I don't even know what that means . Poor and rich are not permanent conditions ;nor is class status static in a free world . What are you saying "from each according to their abilty to each according to their needs "?

the shrinking middle class is one of the biggest myths the left uses.

I don't even know what that means . Poor and rich are not permanent conditions ;nor is class status static in a free world . What are you saying "from each according to their abilty to each according to their needs "?

We are about to get into a highly charged philosphic argument. There is no reason why a government should not have responsibility and assist those who have lost the ability to help themselves. There are good reasons certain social conditions including endemic poverty are not in the public interest.

Having said that and getting us back on topic that same government owes no loyality to those who are not part of the nation and so immigrants should contribute to the nation or be refused entry.

We are about to get into a highly charged philosphic argument. There is no reason why a government should not have responsibilty and assist those who have lost the ability to help themselves. There are good reasons why certain social conditions including endemic poverty are not in the public interest.

Having said that and getting us back on topic that same government owes no loyality to those who are not part of the nation and so immigrants should contribute to the nation or be refused entry.

Your second statement is absolutely correct. The problem with the first statement is that the same government gets to define who has "lost the ability to help themselves." Politicians and Bureaucrats are not real good at that, they want to keep expanding their "sphere of influence."

Your second statement is absolutely correct. The problem with the first statement is that the same government gets to define who has "lost the ability to help themselves." Politicians and Bureaucrats are not real good at that, they want to keep expanding their "sphere of influence."

I understand your government has defined that as at a certain level of income relative to what is regarded as a poverty level. Mine has essentially done the same but relates it to a benchmark called average weekly earnings. What modern society has done is to look at all aspects of society and define benchmarks of what is reasonable and just. In most cases this is far below what is considered adequate to meet all expectations but meets a minimum in sustainability. What is the use of having representative government if it is not to address the issues it is confronted with? It you don't allow them to address and redress the issues then it is nothing more than a talk fest and rubber stamp and they serve no useful purpose. Bureaucrats are very good at working within a set of clear guidelines and within finite budgets, however they continually suffer from political interference which causes that expansion you refer to.

What we as the general public suffer from is a lack of information and a very large amount of disinformation

Socialists... want a large dependent population... they want people to sit on their butts while they tax those who are motivated to work into the poor house. Or at least until they see working isn't worth the effort if it will all be stolen off you by the government to give to the lazy.

Government support of soup kitchens is fine... but unless you get off your butt and work, you aren't entitled to an apartment, car, cable TV and a cell phone.

The only exceptions are for the handicaped... which strangely enough... are NOT the ones wanting a free ride in most cases I have seen.

Lazy isn't a handicap.

There is no reason why a government should not have responsibility and assist those who have lost the ability to help themselves.

And that is why I don't object to a safety net. The rub is that too many have the ability to help themselves and they get locked into this serf-like condition as permanent wards of the state .

That historically was not the case with immigrants .However ,in the past they weren't necessarily eligible to become benefit recipients when they made it into the country.

Socialists...want a large dependent population...they want people to sit on their butts while they tax those who are motivated to work into the poor house. Or at least until they see working isn't worth the effort if it will all be stolen off you by the government to give to the lazy.

Government support of soup kitchens is fine...but unless you get off your butt and work, you aren't entitled to an apartment, car, cable tv and a cell phone.

The only exceptions are for the handicaped...which strangely enough...are NOT the ones wanting a free ride in most cases I have seen.

Lazy isn't a handicap.

What a strange place you must live in. Who is talking about a dependent population. Look back in the bad old days of laissie faire the prisions were full of people who stole food or were involved in petty crime. We don't want a return of those days, as far as accommodation is concerned no purpose is served by increasing the number of homeless people but for the rest, yes get a job. I agree with you about the welfare trap, that is why there are large gaps between benefits and basic earnings, at least, that's the theory but if you have no skill maybe welfare is as good as basic wages where you come from

What a strange place you must live in. Who is talking about a dependent population. look back in the bad old days of laissie faire the prisions were full of people who stole food or were involved in petty crime. we don't want a return of those days, as far as accommodation is concerned no purpose is served by increasing the number of homeless people but for the rest, yes get a job. I agree with you about the welfare trap, that is why there are large gaps between benefits and basic earnings, at least, that's the theory but if you have no skill maybe welfare is as good as basic wages where you come from

Welfare recipients (also know as being on the Dole) are a dependent population... they expect handouts... get them, and thus either never develop or lose a work ethic if they ever had one.

Being on Welfare is NOT the same as being on unemployment.

Who would work if they can get paid to sit at home? Why should the people who won't make the effort get free housing while I work my butt off to pay for mine?

People don't HAVE to steal food to eat... not in the USA anyway which is where I live. With the soup kitchens and other aid to the homeless and poor, anyone who starves is due to their not wanting the help.

Welfare recipients (also know as being on the Dole) are a dependent population...they expect handouts...get them, and thus either never develope or lose a work ethic if they ever had one.

Being on Welfare is NOT the same as being on unemployment.

.

As I said what a strange place you live in, where I come from the dole or unemplyment is the same thing and if you can't find a job you are in training or on work for the dole. There are the disabled but that is another story. The only people I know caught in the welfare trap are our indigenous population and to be fair there isn't a lot of opportunity in some parts of the country. Of course we do have old age pensioners but surely we are not talking about them.

You seem to have a high level of service for the disadvantaged, so there must be some charity working there somewhere but you wouldn't know it from the attitude you display

As I said what a strange place you live in

It's very strange. In the 60s a "War on Poverty" was declared, giving Federal aid to Single parents, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, etc. with no strings attached.

Now we have four or five generations of single mothers for whom each child increases her stipend and marriage or employment would render destitute. In the 90s a "Welfare to Work" program was instituted that did get a few off the dole, but it's still epidemic here.

It's very strange. In the 60s a "War on Poverty" was declared, giving Federal aid to Single parents, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, etc., with no strings attached.

Now we have four or five generations of single mothers for whom each child increases her stipend and marriage or employment would render destitute. In the 90s a "Welfare to Work" program was instituted that did get a few off the dole, but it's still epidemic here.

What you describe is what we call the welfare trap, some people reach a point where it would actually cost them money to get a job, but that situation doesn't last forever. I think it is a comment on our society when wages are so low that that situation could arise. Once a child of a single parent reaches sixteen assistance stops. I'm glad we don't declare war on anything, the last person who tried it here made the foolish statement that by 2000 no Australian child would live in poverty and in 2007 we had the intervention to deal with indigenous disadvantage because of the conditions of indigenous children and their dole bludging parents

As I said what a strange place you live in, where I come from the dole or unemplyment is the same thing and if you can't find a job you are in training or on work for the dole. There are the disabled but that is another story. The only people I know caught in the welfare trap are our indigenous population and to be fair there isn't a lot of opportunity in some parts of the country. Of course we do have old age pensioners but surely we are not talking about them.

You seem to have a high level of service for the disadvantaged, so there must be some charity working there somewhere but you wouldn't know it from the attitude you displayWell, I'm not in or from any strange place...

Welfare and Unemployment are not the same here. How long you can be on umemployment depends on how long you have worked at your job. Generally to discourage people from working a little then collecting as a practice to avoid as much work as they can get away with. And yes there are people like that.

Welfare is totally different... originally intended to help people who could not find work during the 1930's Great Depression when there really was no work to be had... and morphed into a program for people who did NOT want to finish school and/or get a real job because they were too special to break a sweat or get up in the morning.

Many Claim to be "disadvantaged" while the reality, nearly every case is a result of their own choices and actions. Like refusing to finish High school or making the most of it because THEY feel its "uncool".

The only real disadvantaged here are those born with handicaps, or learning disorders (which are NOT their own doing) however failing to make the most of your abilities IS the fault of that person and nobody else. The rest have the same opportunities most of the rest of us have.

Job retraining programs are not automatic... nor specifically part of either program.

And remember... While I am talking about the USA where I am familiar... you are talking about Australia where I admit I am less familiar.

There will be big differences in many programs, as there can be between the UK, USA, and Australian english dialects.

what you describe is what we call the welfare trap, some people reach a point where it would actually cost them money to get a job, but that situation doesn't last forever.

But it does. That's why Bureaucrats get the ninth circle of the Inferno all to themselves. They perpetuate their "client" list to acquire more staus/seniority/power.

There will be big differences in many programs, as there can be between the UK, USA, and Austrailian english dialects.

Indeed but ideas, like people, have a way of migrating. The world really is a small place and many bad ideas get a second outing in a place where the elections come around every three years. The smaller the economy the more it becomes a testbed for new products and new ideas. We do get the advantage of watching and therefore don't always make the mistakes obvious in the first implementation. We also have a political system more ameniable to compromise although it can become polarised as it is at the moment. We have many who like to cross the Pacific to tell us about a problem we haven't experienced yet.

Indeed but ideas, like people, have a way of migrating. The world really is a small place and many bad ideas get a second outing in a place where the elections come around every three years. The smaller the economy the more it becomes a testbed for new products and new ideas. We do get the advantage of watching and therefore don't always make the mistakes obvious in the first implementation. We also have a political system more ameniable to compromise although it can become polarised as it is at the moment. We have many who like to cross the Pacific to tell us about a problem we haven't experienced yet.

I actually have more respect for most illegals than I have for the lazy underclass that feel entitled to handouts.

Doesn't mean I condone their actions however. At least a good number of them actually have a strong work ethic, which is an admiral trait to have.

But laws are laws... and we have the right to limit and control who is allowed to immigrate and how many. Nobody has the right or is "Special" enough to be above the law.

.

But laws are laws...and we have the right to limit and control who is allowed to immigrate and how many. Nobody has the right or is "Special" enough to be above the law.

Go tell it to the UN they want a home for all their refugees which is another way of saying people who think the grass is greener someplace else. I agree, no country should have to take people just because they turn up on their door step, which is a complete reversal of the situation under which both our countries were founded. However, we have forgotten that we do need to think about how to alleviate poverty in the places where these people come from. A little exploration of inner space might do more for this planet than chasing after a dream in a place that doesn't even sustain life

Go tell it to the UN they want a home for all their refugees which is another way of saying people who think the grass is greener someplace else. I agree, no country should have to take people just because they turn up on their door step, which is a complete reversal of the situation under which both our countries were founded. However, we have forgotten that we do need to think about how to alleviate poverty in the places where these people come from. A little exploration of inner space might do more for this planet than chasing after a dream in a place that doesn't even sustain life

Don't even get me started on that worthless bunch...

The UN... what a joke. Yeah it was created with noble purposes in mind... but its somehow turned into a clone of a student council that somehow got taken over by all the school bullies and troublemakers.