Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: They didn't pay the cover, but here they are at our party. They're eating the food and drinking from the open bar. That means less food, drinks, space, opportunities to mingle, parking, etc. for our invited and paid guests.

I think your analogy is broken. What is the "cover" in this scenario? If it's being economically productive and paying taxes, then immigrants are paying more than you probably think they are. They are funding Social Security in record numbers but not drawing benefits, so that's free money for the rest of us. On top of that they also pay sales tax, property taxes, and income taxes for a total of about $17.6 billion a year. While the higher costs of public schools and police and fire services is higher, it's not like they have failed - in your analogy - to pay the cover charge at all. They've just come up a little light.

I don't understand why anyone pays taxes. They should all just deal with cash and not report anything. People that pay taxes are chumps.

Vince wrote: I don't understand why anyone pays taxes. They should all just deal with cash and not report anything. People that pay taxes are chumps.

Leona Helmsley?

TPRJones wrote: They've just come up a little light.

Still stealing. Still breaking the law.

I also don't trust any of those numbers. Not because those links are to or are not to sketchy sites, but because I honestly believe the numbers are being shown in certain lights, ala man made global warming. Not saying they're wrong, just taking them with a grain of salt. Although, the fact that your second link starts with this doesn't help:

Donald Trump may not have paid federal income taxes for 20 years, but the undocumented immigrants he rails against certainly have, according to the head of a Latino civic engagement organization.

No bias there, huh?

I would be interested to see how they generate those numbers. Under 11 million illegals, many of whom are migrant workers, somehow generate 17.6 billion a year in taxes? That is particularly shocking to someone who lived in the SW like me where I attended specific briefings about how to drive safely because illegals were numerous and didn't buy car insurance.

Leisher wrote: I also don't trust any of those numbers.

Fair enough, anything online is questionable. But Politifact in particular is pretty equally hated by both sides. Republicans think it's a liberal mouthpiece and Democrats think it's a conservative mouthpiece. So they're probably doing something right overall. As to the numbers themselves they seem to makes sense. It would mean that - on average - illegals pay $1600 each per year in taxes of all types. I find that hard to argue with.

Surely some of them are paid under the table, yes, but probably not as many as in the past. If your business is going to expense your labor costs in such a way as to reduce the taxes for your company, that's going to result in a paper trail that leads to quarterly employer tax payments of withholding and taxes paid by these illegals. And so far as I know - unlike the rest of us - they can't file at the end of the year to get back their overpayments so that's just lost money that adds to the total taxes. All in all $1600 each seems a bit low, but I'm willing to accept it as likely to be in the ballpark.

Leisher wrote: They ARE stealing. Pick a commodity: Jobs, Money, Health Care, Education, etc. The list covers, literally, everything we have here in the U.S

We already have deadbeats in this country doing the same thing. I'm not inclined to be biased against an illegal alien because he might be one, too. Given enough time, that dude might actually get a job, dig his way out of the bottom, and amount to something he couldn't before because he lived in a shithole. The local deadbeats have had time and ain't done shit. Their audition is fucking over. I'm supposed to give them a free pass while denying the same opportunities and freebies to an illegal immigrant who's already accomplished something by beating the border controls of the most powerful nation on the planet? That's more than the deadbeat's gotten done; I'm inclined to see what else the illegal guy can do.

Secondly, most illegal aliens follow the law better than regular citizens. I can only imagine why.

Leisher wrote: They didn't pay the cover, but here they are at our party.

I'm not inclined to fuck them over simply because neither they nor their parents were born here.

Leisher wrote: I'd love to know the actual percentage of our 11 million illegals who tried filing for citizenship first. I'm betting the number is really, really low.

You mean they don't want to deal with governmental bullshit when they might be staring down the barrel of poverty and/or death if they wait? Yeah, wow. Unreal.

Leisher wrote: However, you can't rule via emotion.

This isn't emotion, this is logic. Illegal aliens arguably have an upside and automatic deportation upon any legal entanglement seems fucking stupid. There should at least be a "are they a douchebag" investigation. If a decent person can get past the bouncer to get in the party, I don't give a fuck. Seems fair to me. And breaking immigration laws doesn't take away from them being a decent person. It means they were in a hurry and couldn't wait for the Short Bus Squadron to get around to them one day maybe.

Leisher wrote: Some of the paying guests worked for years to pay to get into the party. But I guess fuck them, right?

They can apparently afford to wait or aren't stealthy or clever enough to sneak in. My sympathies. Maybe if the legit naturalization process didn't suck balls, more people would use it.

This court is insane. No one will argue that I'm a Trump guy, but there needs to be some serious impeachment papers drawn up on these judges. This is the epitome of tyranny in black robes. They gave standing to sue the government to a guy whose mother-in-law couldn't come to visit, but AZ has no standing to sure the US government for expenses tied to illegal aliens that the federal government isn't keeping out? They rules on his travel ban, not on the law as written, but based on things he said on the campaign trail? Seriously? If that is to be accepted as the basis of law, courts will be interpreting laws in a whole new way. Not that I wouldn't like it on some level, but it's in no way Constitutional. Imagine the SCOTUS striking down Obama's health care law because it didn't match up with what he said on the campaign trail. Or for that matter, we could just treat that crap bill Ryan and Trump were pushing as a full reform of the ACA since that's what they were saying on the campaign stump speeches.

Like him or not (I don't) the law gives the President the authority to suspend immigration for any reason. Change the law. I'm starting to wonder why we bother with elections if we're going to choose to have unchecked kings to rule over us all.

They rules on his travel ban, not on the law as written, but based on things he said on the campaign trail? Seriously? If that is to be accepted as the basis of law, courts will be interpreting laws in a whole new way.

Intent is - and has always been - an important part of these legal processes. If you can use someone's words and actions to demonstrate intent, then it doesn't matter if the text of the order in question doesn't itself mention the intent as long as it still has an effect that was clearly demonstrated to be intended. And if that intended effect is unconstitutional then that order is unconstitutional.

This is not new, this is how our legal system has always worked.

Like him or not (I don't) the law gives the President the authority to suspend immigration for any reason.

It does not. There are certain reasons that he does not have the authority to suspend immigration for, and they are related to the constitutional amendments regarding protected classes. The President can't make an order banning immigration based on gender, race, religion, etc. Such an act is unconstitutional.

If an order to ban from certain countries coincidentally involves a high proportion of one of these protected classes that is fine. UNLESS there is evidence that the intent was to ban the protected class and that the order was written about countries solely in order to obfuscate that intent. If that can be shown then the order remains unconstitutional.

"My intent was to go 55 mph, but i was going down hill and my speed eased up to 60, sorry officer."

"Doesn't matter, 55 is the speed limit, here's your ticket."

Don't be stupid, of course intent doesn't excuse you from getting in trouble for breaking laws. It only goes in the other direction; your intent can still get you in trouble even if what you did was technically legal on the surface without the intent.

More commonly it applies to such things as the difference between manslaughter and murder, and between legally refusing service to someone versus illegally persecuting a protected class. That sort of thing.

TPRJones wrote: Fair enough, anything online is questionable. But Politifact in particular is pretty equally hated by both sides. Republicans think it's a liberal mouthpiece and Democrats think it's a conservative mouthpiece. So they're probably doing something right overall. As to the numbers themselves they seem to makes sense. It would mean that - on average - illegals pay $1600 each per year in taxes of all types. I find that hard to argue with.

I'm not saying the sites are questionable at all, I just think it's a really difficult number to calculate. (Their actual cost being even more difficult, but I know economically, it's far more likely to be a net loss.) It being in the billions would explain why the government doesn't enforce their laws because their love of money is ALWAYS more of a concern than the welfare of their citizens. I'd be very curious to see how the tax numbers break down for migrant workers vs actual illegals.

Malcolm wrote: We already have deadbeats in this country doing the same thing. I'm not inclined to be biased against an illegal alien because he might be one, too. Given enough time, that dude might actually get a job, dig his way out of the bottom, and amount to something he couldn't before because he lived in a shithole. The local deadbeats have had time and ain't done shit. Their audition is fucking over. I'm supposed to give them a free pass while denying the same opportunities and freebies to an illegal immigrant who's already accomplished something by beating the border controls of the most powerful nation on the planet? That's more than the deadbeat's gotten done; I'm inclined to see what else the illegal guy can do.

Whoa! Slow down and back up. You're creating a whole new debate here, and it's shockingly bleeding heart in nature. This isn't about our citizens versus illegals. That has absolutely ZERO weight in this discussion. Besides, it's ridiculously flawed and still attacks illegals.

Let me touch on the attacks the illegals thing first. There's an example out there of some illegal whose been here for two decades. He's married, pays taxes, owns a business, plays by the rules, etc. He's going to get deported. We're supposed to feel awful for him and hate that xenophobe Trump. However, my response was: You've been here for 20 years and you never bothered to get your citizenship? End of the day, he's here illegally, so tough shit. He had to know this was always a possibility, so if he was truly a responsible citizen who loved his family, he'd have taken care of this years ago.

I want to go back to something TPR said before I continue addressing your point Malcolm. He stated:

TPRJones wrote: Because incompetent or corrupt lawmakers and cops that arbitrarily choose when to enforce a law versus when to ignore a law have destroyed any respect for the rule of law in this country.

I said that was an oversimplification, and it is, and you guys arguing for these illegals is proof. These people are breaking laws and we're supposed to forgive that because we should feel bad for them? C'mon, there's no way in hell Malcolm is leading with his non-existent heart here. It's more likely you're just taking a contrary position to everything Trump.

Anyway, I respect the rule of law. Yeah, I know, I'm weird like that. So I'm automatically going to be in the "illegals have to leave or get citizenship through the proper channels" camp.

There are sob stories that will be tough to hear, but they made their bed. There is not a member of this forum who doesn't subscribe to the concept of being responsible for one's self, yet on this issue we ignore it? No. Every single illegal should have some paperwork showing they have at least attempted to get citizenship. If they have, those people are the ones you could convince me should stay through a mass citizenship or something.

Back to your paragraph that really doesn't apply Malcolm...

Dealing with our deadbeats is something I'm all for, but like I said, it's a different topic. And since you took this stance, I think one thing we'll agree on is deadbeat illegals need to go immediately.

Malcolm wrote: I'm not inclined to fuck them over simply because neither they nor their parents were born here.

Have kids. When they start having friends over who eat all your food, take up your space, invade your privacy, etc. come back here and tell us how much you love it.

I don't think our citizens should pay for illegals because you're inclined to see if those illegals are worth a damn. And what you're proposing would have to be on a case by case basis, so I'm sure that'll be free and easy to police and enforce.

Malcolm wrote: You mean they don't want to deal with governmental bullshit when they might be staring down the barrel of poverty and/or death if they wait? Yeah, wow. Unreal.

At no point do I question why people come here. However, I have a question for you Mr. Suddenly Liberal: At what point do you draw the line? Surely you understand basic economics and resource usage. So when do you finally scream "no more"? How bad do things have to get here before you say, "Close to border"?



Now listen, I realize that in your argument all 11 million illegals are hard working, law abiding people running from poverty and death, but we can't sustain it forever.

By the way, you do realize that Mexico, who is super serious about the U.S. needing to treat their citizens here illegally well, is harsher on illegals than we are? When your country's budget actually depends on your citizens basically invading a foreign country and sending their money back to you, something is wrong.

Malcolm wrote: This isn't emotion, this is logic.

I must have missed the logic part in your argument. It's been all emotion and speculation based on maybes. You're blaming our government for not making the citizenship process faster (as if we'd immediately green light 11 million people), bashing lazy Americans, suggesting the illegals are lawful and hard workers (stereotypes are fun!), and just generally saying "Let's give 'em a chance and if they break the law who cares?"

Malcolm wrote: Illegal aliens arguably have an upside and automatic deportation upon any legal entanglement seems fucking stupid. There should at least be a "are they a douchebag" investigation. If a decent person can get past the bouncer to get in the party, I don't give a fuck. Seems fair to me. And breaking immigration laws doesn't take away from them being a decent person. It means they were in a hurry and couldn't wait for the Short Bus Squadron to get around to them one day maybe.

Very logical.

Malcolm wrote: They can apparently afford to wait or aren't stealthy or clever enough to sneak in. My sympathies. Maybe if the legit naturalization process didn't suck balls, more people would use it.

Fuck the people who follow the law? Again, crazy logical.

As for Trump's travel bans, you can't just arbitrarily block Muslims from entering the country legally, which is what he seems to be trying to do (ditto for several European countries now). That being said, if the president wants to block travel visas from countries that support terrorism I lean towards he should have that power. However, that's not how he want about this, so a person who is clearly at political odds with Trump is using that against him.

These people are breaking laws and we're supposed to forgive that because we should feel bad for them?

I think you and I have a fundamental difference in how we view laws. I don't give a shit what the law says, I only care about justice. If the law is unjust, then I will ignore it as I see fit. I suspect you would disagree and argue that a law has merit just by the simple fact that it is a law, yes?

There is not a member of this forum who doesn't subscribe to the concept of being responsible for one's self, yet on this issue we ignore it?

No, but we have a fundamental disagreement on the importance of laws in the first place. I will always look at "have they hurt anyone and have they been good taxpayers and neighbors (i.e. are we better with them here)" while it sounds like you will always look at "did they follow the law". So we will always disagree on points where the laws are potentially counter to the pragmatics of the situation, because I care about law not one tiny bit and you care a great deal.

TPRJones wrote: Don't be stupid, of course intent doesn't excuse you from getting in trouble for breaking laws. It only goes in the other direction; your intent can still get you in trouble even if what you did was technically legal on the surface without the intent.

More commonly it applies to such things as the difference between manslaughter and murder, and between legally refusing service to someone versus illegally persecuting a protected class. That sort of thing.

Oh sorry I'll try to stop being stupid when you say the law isn't the law.

Here, the Wikipedia article on legal intent is a pretty good place to start if you don't care to take my word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

Or if you want to get more directly to the point on this conversation you'll want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

EDIT: And why it doesn't apply to speeding tickets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_li ... ted_States

I don't care.

TPRJones wrote: I don't give a shit what the law says, I only care about justice.

Justice according to who? You? You claim to be concerned about people being good neighbors, but you don't want to follow the rules unless they suit you.

TPRJones wrote: If the law is unjust, then I will ignore it as I see fit.

So if you come to my house and I ask you to take your shoes off, you won't respect the laws I have established in my interests unless you feel like it? I think that makes you wrong. Yes, I know you're an anarchist and in your utopia of no laws everyone holds hands and sings songs together and nothing bad ever happens, but in reality, laws are important for maintaining society. A law might not be in your best interest, but is in the best interest of the society you live in.

TPRJones wrote: I suspect you would disagree and argue that a law has merit just by the simple fact that it is a law, yes?

I will disagree, but not just because it's a law. As you stated before, there are some dumb laws out there. They should be changed. I just happen to agree with enforcing the laws against illegally immigrating to the U.S. I also, as a citizen, know I don't get to arbitrarily decide what laws to follow and what to not follow, at least not without potential consequences. I hate paying taxes, but I pay them. I think seat belt laws are a violation of my right to be dumb, but I click it as I don't want a ticket (plus, safety isn't stupid). And so on...

I even follow rules I might not agree with, for example, if Ohio makes recreational marijuana illegal I still won't do it because it will still be against my work place's rules and could get me fired.

TPRJones wrote: No, but we have a fundamental disagreement on the importance of laws in the first place. I will always look at "have they hurt anyone and have they been good taxpayers and neighbors (i.e. are we better with them here)" while it sounds like you will always look at "did they follow the law".

Well, first of all, you're ignoring the whole "have they hurt anyone", but I know you only care about physical pain. Who gives a shit if they're putting a financial, political, and/or cultural strain on the economy, right?

But I'll ask you the same thing I asked Malcolm, where's the line? As the video, and logic, shows such migration is not sustainable. We have a finite amount of space and resources. So who gets fucked in your plan? Are you just taking a "fuck it, I'll be dead by the time it's a problem!" attitude?

And if we want to continue to focus on feels, how about you come here and explain to the family of the three people killed by the illegal how our government not enforcing their own laws was a good thing? Or go to Maryland and tell the 14 year old girl that her getting raped was a win for America!

Ok, I'm being a smart ass right now, and people gonna be evil no matter their race, sex, background, citizen status, etc. However, don't such examples fit your criteria of kicking them out?

Oh, and let's say the financial cost of illegals is anywhere from $1.6 billion to $113 billion (after removing their vast contributions...), that doesn't make them good taxpayers or neighbors. In fact, it probably drops them into the deadbeats category that Malcolm hates, but will somehow spin so he's not agreeing with Trump.

But I'm wrong because I think some rules are good I guess. I should just shut up and sit back while people come here illegally, fly their home nation's flags, declare they will never be loyal to the U.S., commit crimes (1-infinite? Where's the number that makes them bad neighbors?), send $50 billion out of the country (sorry for that more than likely biased link) while only paying $17.6 billion into this country, refuse to learn the language, buy insurance, and generally drain the economy. I guess that and the fact their own country doesn't want them back makes them awesome neighbors?

I think we have more common ground on the topic of laws than we do immigration.

Laws are complicated. I certainly want other people to obey them, but like TPR, I respect the notion that some laws are bullshit and not worth following, and certainly reserve the right to ignore them, while at the same time acknowledging I could get in trouble for that, etc.

That being said, I think illegals should not have been allowed in and treated so laxly by the law.

Leisher wrote:Justice according to who? You?

Yes, of course. And you, and TheCatt, and every Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice. We are all responsible for our own decisions about what is right and wrong, that is unavoidable. Letting some lawmaker override your own decisions about right and wrong because they make laws and you don't doesn't absolve you of that responsibility.

So if you come to my house and I ask you to take your shoes off, you won't respect the laws I have established in my interests unless you feel like it?

Yes, but since I'm not all that much of an asshole I will be taking my shoes off. More to the point, though, we all make choices about what laws to follow and what laws to ignore every day. Thanks to such idiocy as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, you've probably broken the law several times already today and you don't seem to be upset about that.

...at least not without potential consequences. I hate paying taxes, but I pay them. I think seat belt laws are a violation of my right to be dumb, but I click it as I don't want a ticket (plus, safety isn't stupid). And so on...

Agreed, all of the above things I've said don't mean I also don't consider and acknowledge the potential consequences. But those consequences should be justifiable, and not more cruel than the crime calls for. That's where we might disagree on immigration law. In the case of someone that was smuggled in at age 2 and are now 19 years old and have been here their entire life, I would say to kick them out and send them back to a country they know nothing about and may not even be able to speak the language is too cruel. In the case of someone that has lived here 20 years and paid all their taxes and been a fine upstanding citizen, I would say to kick them out and send them back to a country where they are facing political persecution is too cruel. There are also plenty of cases where people should be sent back, absolutely, but I think these have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis because otherwise the potential for injustice is unacceptably high.

But I'll ask you the same thing I asked Malcolm, where's the line? ... However, don't such examples fit your criteria of kicking them out?

I don't know exactly where the line is. That's worth discussing. And, yes, I would put rapists and murderers and drunk drivers on the "kick 'em out" side of the line, although perhaps rapid execution would be an even better choice. Somewhere between rapist and saint, though, a line may be found.

Oh, and let's say the financial cost of illegals is anywhere from $1.6 billion to $113 billion (after removing their vast contributions...), that doesn't make them good taxpayers or neighbors.

And I say you can't lump them all together like that in any meaningful way. You have to pluck one of them out of the crowd and look at the details. Are they making an honest living? Have they paid their taxes? Are they making sure their children are being educated and taught to speak English so they won't themselves be a drain on society some day? You have to look at each individual before making a real decision.

Leisher wrote: Anyway, I respect the rule of law.

I'd first have to respect the people that made it and the others that enforce it, and that's simply not the case for me because those individuals don't respect the law themselves and do not deserve my respect.

Leisher wrote: We have a finite amount of space and resources.

By this logic, I can also say that the domestic losers will eventually outbreed and overwhelm us all. What do you plan to do about them?

Leisher wrote: And if we want to continue to focus on feels, how about you come here and explain to the family of the three people killed by the illegal how our government not enforcing their own laws was a good thing? Or go to Maryland and tell the 14 year old girl that her getting raped was a win for America!

I hear some guy from Detroit once raped some chick. We should exile everyone from Michigan, just to be sure we get them all; Michigan's practically Canada. Back to reality, those douches should get the boot. Trying to enforce our current immigration laws as they sit or as Drumpf interprets them is stupid and an invitation to piss away money. We are the richest country in the world. People will always want to come here, period. A sizable portion of those people will be more desperate to get in than we are to keep them out. A minority of them will be criminal assholes. But the assholes are going to try to sneak in any-fucking-way. They're fair game for punishment once caught. We should be enticing the non-assholes to get through the legit process.

Leisher wrote: However, my response was: You've been here for 20 years and you never bothered to get your citizenship?

If this dude was married to a US citizen and never got around to applying, then he's stupid or lazy. But if he's not a dick, I'm still not going to kick him out for it.

Leisher wrote: C'mon, there's no way in hell Malcolm is leading with his non-existent heart here. It's more likely you're just taking a contrary position to everything Trump.

No, you simply have an obsession with framing every single point I make as if the whole reason I conjured up the thought was to attack that politically illiterate twat.

Leisher wrote: When they start having friends over who eat all your food, take up your space, invade your privacy, etc. come back here and tell us how much you love it.

I'm not inviting people to live with me, I'm letting them over the border and giving them a chance to get their own place and job.

Leisher wrote:At what point do you draw the line? Surely you understand basic economics and resource usage. So when do you finally scream "no more"? How bad do things have to get here before you say, "Close to border"?

How about making it so that sneaking in here doesn't get you an absurd amount of entitlements? I think that'd tackle the root cause of both the domestic and foreign losers. Make it far less enticing to stay unemployed or not get your papers. If we catch you without papers once, we will NOT automatically deport you even if you've been here for five decades ... provided you pass the "not a douchebag" test. If you get caught without them twice, you'd better be decently skilled labour or get the fuck out. Three times? Get the fuck out regardless. The cost of doing that seems preferable to maintaining a small army of ICE pigs that can at will decide who stays in this country and who goes. "Oh, yeah, you and your suitcase of money can stay safely in the US..."

Not sure how league rules count rape of minors by illegals, and to further complicate things it was 2 males raping 1 female. There's going to have to be a ruling for how many, IF any, points this counts as on the "number of crimes by illegals that are tolerable for the big picture" thresholds. I know we were just talking about murders before, so you know. My bad.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/illegals-in- ... ssmate-14/

GORDON wrote: "number of crimes by illegals that are tolerable for the big picture"

For fuck's sake, I'm not talking about tolerating the violent criminals. You really think dudes like that are going through the legit process? By this sort of logic, we may as well keep every violent offender in jail for life or execute them. Fuckers are dangerous, you can't take chances. They already broke the law once.