Build the wall

[Joij21]

if not, why the hell are pundits celebrating not that the wall is being built, but that their opponent looks weak?

Because it makes the opponent candidate lose the faith of more of his base thereby possibly leading to less turnout in the upcoming election, boosting conservatives' chances of victory.

Like I said though, if they are also claiming benefits without paying the tax, then it's a little bit of a problem. Not so much because they are essential to the funding of the benefits program, but more because of the unfairness to the people who are being taxed to pay for it out of regressive payroll taxes

I'd say it's a very big problem. If your living paycheck to paycheck and a decent part of your salary is being siphoned off to pay for an illegal's welfare when they have an under the table job without having to pay taxes, it's extremely unfair. Furthermore because the job is undocumented they could easily get that welfare all while still earning untaxed pay.

Easy riches all while natural born citizens have to work two or three jobs just to keep up.

 

[El_Machinae]

As I said, it's a problem. It's more of one of morale than anything. The real fundamental problem in that entire story is that the profits at the very top of that income pyramid, the people well-above those working under the table and 'to make ends meet' are vastly under-taxed

It's not so much that people are working under the table, it's that a regressive tax is being used to fund benefits that should be funded with progressive taxes.

I'm distinguishing benefits from 'welfare', because the United States has these utterly insane Welfare Traps that are just not the same thing as proper Employment Insurance, Health Insurance, and Pensions.

 

[Angst]

"Is it a misfortune that the wonderful California was wrested from the lazy Mexicans, who did not know what to do with it?....All impotent nations must, in the final analysis, be grateful to those who, obeying historical necessities, attach them to a great empire, thus allowing them participation in a historical development which would otherwise be unknown to them. It is self-evident that such a result could not be obtained without crushing some sweet little flowers. Without violence, nothing can be accomplished in history..."

"...we have been spectators of the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced in it. It is progress that a country which, up till now, was concerned exclusively with itself, torn asunder by eternal civil wars and alien to any form of development..should have been propelled, through violence, to historical development. It is in the interest of it's own development that it shall, in the future, be placed under the tutelage of the United States. It is in the interest of the whole of America that the United States, thanks to the conquest of California, should achieve mastery over the Pacific Ocean".

honestly Lex, historical context is a thing, but I'm not cool with your dialectic.

IIRC that was supposed to happen in 1986.

no, @Senethro made the "tribal" comment and if biden is a tribalist, it is because he is trying to marginalize 50% of the population.

Qanon worthy conspiracy theory

ACLU seems to oppose this

"look at how tribal senethro is"

why'd you make the thread?

 

[AdamCrock]

We all get bricks every Day. Wheter we build a bridge or Wall out of them is up on us

No body can be taxed when the spirit is not willig Americans have prooved that

By the war of independance!

 

[Joij21]

As I said, it's a problem. It's more of one of morale than anything. The real fundamental problem in that entire story is that the profits at the very top of that income pyramid, the people well-above those working under the table and 'to make ends meet' are vastly under-taxed

It's not so much that people are working under the table, it's that a regressive tax is being used to fund benefits that should be funded with progressive taxes.

I'm distinguishing benefits from 'welfare', because the United States has these utterly insane Welfare Traps that are just not the same thing as proper Employment Insurance, Health Insurance, and Pensions.

Sorry but if one is not a citizen then they don't need benefits. Apply for asylum if the home county can't pay.

Your either in the tax system and a citizen or your not.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I know it's bothersome. And I know it seems 'unfair'. And I know that it feels better if people are actually paying taxes. But remember that a tax is more of a redirection of consumption power taken out of your general production. If you're working, you're in the tax system, because someone is capturing the profits of your labor.

Look at it this way: if I pay my employees $30 / hr, then I make $70 / hour profit. At 40%, the tax that I pay on their labor is (0.40 * 70) = $28. If I suppress their wage so that they're making $20 / hr (by, for example, hiring under the table and lowering wages overall), then my taxes are (0.40 * 80) = $32.
That $4 looks like it's tax that I am paying, but it's actually 'funded' out of their reduced ability to consume.
The failure of the tax code (as it is) is that my total taxes should actually go up more than $10 when wages are reduced, because the total strain on the system will be greater than the $10 that I've suppressed.
But people will feel sorry for me that my taxes have gone up and feel jealous of the guy making $20. You'll notice that with their reduced consumption (at $20 / hr), the person with the suppressed wage actually is already effectively paying $4 more in taxes vs the people making $30. Unless the people making $30 are already somehow having their consumption power reduced to an effective $26.
Anybody more interested in the guy making $20 is being tricked, because the net damage is higher than $10 and the profit is going to the person 'getting taxed more')

(Also, I get why people want only citizens to get benefits, but it also strikes me as reasonable that people can 'buy into' benefits if they're being funded sustainably)

 

[Gorbles]

If your living paycheck to paycheck and a decent part of your salary is being siphoned off to pay for an illegal's welfare

Sounds like a problem with how much said people are being taxed, more than any hypothetical immigrant's welfare.

I've lived paycheck to paycheck. Have you? Do you actually know how your tax is used? Do you know, precisely, what it pays for?

 

[Samson]

To be fair, it was only after WW1 that passports really became a Thing, which is when people really started caring about border controls. Given this was happening even on the border between, say, France and the UK, I'm not sure you can paint the entire idea of border controls as being due to racial eugenics.

The first criminalisation of immigration to the UK, which was just before WW1 IIRC, was quite explicitly to keep the Jews out.

[EDIT] Looked it up, the 1905 Aliens Act.

 

[AdamCrock]

You guys are behind a tech called social contract.

 

[AdamCrock]

Thomas was right the more freedom You give away the more You do not deserve it

 

[Cutlass]

Because it makes the opponent candidate lose the faith of more of his base thereby possibly leading to less turnout in the upcoming election, boosting conservatives' chances of victory.



I'd say it's a very big problem. If your living paycheck to paycheck and a decent part of your salary is being siphoned off to pay for an illegal's welfare when they have an under the table job without having to pay taxes, it's extremely unfair. Furthermore because the job is undocumented they could easily get that welfare all while still earning untaxed pay.

Easy riches all while natural born citizens have to work two or three jobs just to keep up.

Illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.






They are subsidizing you.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If they want to stop illegal immigration border wall won't do squat.

Punish the employers who employ illegals. Can't get a job illegally would choke off the pull effect of the USA.

This might also encourage those who hire them to threaten/punish/abuse/kill the people they hire, to keep their hiring practices secret.

If the risk of hiring is a small fine, they pay the fine and keep it moving... if the risk is 20 years in jail, maybe they kill the worker to prevent exposure. Another facet of the same thing, is it encourages the use of the people in illegal forms of labor, where they have less recourse to complain to law enforcement and thus are more at the mercy of their employers... ie, illegal enterprise workers can't call the government for protection, they have to call the mafia.

 

[Lexicus]

This might also encourage those who hire them to threaten/punish/abuse/kill the people they hire, to keep their hiring practices secret.

If the risk of hiring is a small fine, they pay the fine and keep it moving... if the risk is 20 years in jail, maybe they kill the worker to prevent exposure. Another facet of the same thing, is it encourages the use of the people in illegal forms of labor, where they have less recourse to complain to law enforcement and thus are more at the mercy of their employers... ie, illegal enterprise workers can't call the government for protection, they have to call the mafia.

We must keep around a class of legal non-persons subject to forced resettlement for crossing an imaginary line. Never can tell when that might be useful.

 

[uppi]

This might also encourage those who hire them to threaten/punish/abuse/kill the people they hire, to keep their hiring practices secret.

If the risk of hiring is a small fine, they pay the fine and keep it moving... if the risk is 20 years in jail, maybe they kill the worker to prevent exposure. Another facet of the same thing, is it encourages the use of the people in illegal forms of labor, where they have less recourse to complain to law enforcement and thus are more at the mercy of their employers... ie, illegal enterprise workers can't call the government for protection, they have to call the mafia.

If you are not enforcing murder laws so that people think they can get away with it, then you are going to have trouble enforcing labor laws, yeah.

With a strategy of punishing the employer, not the employee, you could protect the people in illegal forms of labor, especially when they cooperate with evidence against their employer. If reporting on illegal employment was a path to citizenship, employment of illegal migrants would plummet. Of course, then you would also have to have a plan what to do with the now unemployed illegals.

 

[El_Machinae]

Some of this story reminds me of the conversation around sex work, whether to go after the John, and if they have to specifically enforce solicitation laws in certain dangerous areas of town 'for their protection'

 

[Cutlass]

Some of this story reminds me of the conversation around sex work, whether to go after the John, and if they have to specifically enforce solicitation laws in certain dangerous areas of town 'for their protection'

That hasn't worked out at all well for the prostitute, where it's been tried.

 

[Angst]

punishing sex work doesn't remove it from the world. as cutlass noted.

improving conditions for lower class people so people only go into sex work amiably, can work to decrease it.

if sex work can't be "solved", if it is just what's going to happen, guaranteeing basic rights and economic safety for them is the way to go. like, if it's always going to happen, make sure their lives are as good as possible.

but it's hard to push through because people think it's disgusting, and want their freedom from disgust enforced.

i don't like it happening, but it's because of the economic conditions, and partly because people both find it disgusting while abusing the product. the hypocrisy is tiring.

 

[El_Machinae]

That hasn't worked out at all well for the prostitute, where it's been tried.

Yes, I am familiar. Complete legalization seems to be the most-desired strategy, when it comes to providing protections. That's why the conversation reminded me of it.

 

[RobAnybody]

punishing sex work doesn't remove it from the world. as cutlass noted.

improving conditions for lower class people so people only go into sex work amiably, can work to decrease it.

if sex work can't be "solved", if it is just what's going to happen, guaranteeing basic rights and economic safety for them is the way to go. like, if it's always going to happen, make sure their lives are as good as possible.

but it's hard to push through because people think it's disgusting, and want their freedom from disgust enforced.

i don't like it happening, but it's because of the economic conditions, and partly because people both find it disgusting while abusing the product. the hypocrisy is tiring.

While I agree with everything you wrote... you could just substitute "migrant workers" for "sex work" & the point would remain the same. The solution to both seems to be, IMO: legalize & regulate.

Oddly (US perspective), it's the Republicans who are against doing either one, & the Democrats who can't propose either one without being demonized. The unfortunate fact is that the humane, practical solution, in both cases, is a losing political strategy currently.

 

[Angst]

While I agree with everything you wrote... you could just substitute "migrant workers" for "sex work" & the point would remain the same. The solution to both seems to be, IMO: legalize & regulate.

Oddly (US perspective), it's the Republicans who are against doing either one, & the Democrats who can't propose either one without being demonized. The unfortunate fact is that the humane, practical solution, in both cases, is a losing political strategy currently.

i agree.

interestingly, again, i believe a lot of this stuff has little to do with pragmatism and everything to do with freedom from disgust. what sex work represents, scary foreigners, seeing them gays kiss on the street. freedom from disgust is a moral pillar right wingers in generally heralds moreso than the left. (as to the quality of that pillar... i'm sure you know my position here. but in regards to wanting to not see "icky" things, i have very little respect for it.)