Slavery in the US

[BigBallinStalin]

So, let's establish a difficult scenario and think like public policymakers.


(1) Effectiveness of enforcement on illegal immigration
---> Is is effective or ineffective?
---> Can it be made more effective?
---> If so, is it worth the benefits and costs? (the negative consequences of violating citizens' rights and human rights come to mind).

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

If (1) is ineffective and can't be made more effective (without incurring more costs than benefits), then we face a serious dilemma:


Since some portion of illegal immigrants are being treated as slaves, and since all illegal immigrants can't seek legal redress due to the unintended consequences of current immigrant policies, then....

(A) Should immigration policies be relaxed, thus allowing the current illegal immigrants to be freed of slavery and/or be allowed to partake in the legal system?

(B) Should the State's monopoly on the legal system be abolished or broken up, so that private courts would become available to the illegal immigrants in order to mitigate the negative consequences (slavery, contract/immigrants' property rights violations, etc.) of public policy?

(C) ???

You start with the wrong assumptions, entirely in the above.

Enforcement of illegal workers was intentionally ineffective, becuase people in real power benefitted from the mass of low wage workers who made few demands.

However, per A. We need to change the focus from illegal immigration to working without paying taxes. I have stated elsewhere that I think its reasonable to assess all non-citizens specific additional tax. HOWEVER, the onus of enforcement and penalty should be on the employer, not the employee.

B) utterly irrelevant. this is not a private versus state court issue. The public court system is actually very effective, its just that a lot of private entities don't want it used... and tend to subvert it.

Ugh. " Effectiveness of enforcement on illegal immigration" is not an assumption. It's a title.
Below the title are questions which a policymaker faces. You see, the enforcement on immigration affects the influx of illegal immigrants (as do other factors, which are beyond our policymaker's power). Your answers to the questions are like levers of a giant machine--which is assumed to lead to the intended outcomes. Too bad you didn't answer those questions because depending on those answers, the alternatives may justifiably be ignored.

Although politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups may benefit from an influx of low wage workers, these are still incompatible goals for other politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups, so your claim isn't self-evident. The "ruling class hypothesis" which you're espousing can't account for a specific outcome from competing groups. In other words, your claim is dubious, and it wouldn't be reasonable for me to take it as truth--given the previously mentioned problem with it.


(RE: your A). Player, the issue is about illegal immigrants seeking legal means to defend themselves. Taxing those who work without paying taxes doesn't address this problem, so I fail to see how your response is relevant. Besides, requiring the employer to enforce this would be disastrous, since the employer is already a cause of the disputes over a contract. Now, the employer will oversee enforcement? That's not reasonable.


(B) Privatization of the monopolized legal system, or some shift toward freer markets is relevant, because this is a legal issue. Maybe you forgot that it was a legal issue? If the public court system is actually very effective, then why does forced labor and modern forms of slavery exist in the US? You do realize that you're implying that the legal system is in no way responsible for this problem, right? (to say otherwise, would contradict your claim that the legal system is very effective).

Why does the public court system fail to address the unintended consequences of US immigration policies? It's apparent that the public court system on this issue (which is the topic) is not "actually very effective."


You answered "Yes, very much so," to my question, "Is this failure to seek legal redress due to their inability to partake in the US legal system?" If the public legal system is "actually very effective," then why would you agree that the failure of illegal immigrants to seek legal redress is due to their inability to partake in the US legal system"?

[PLAYER57832]

Ugh. " Effectiveness of enforcement on illegal immigration" is not an assumption. It's a title.
Below the title are questions which a policymaker faces. You see, the enforcement on immigration affects the influx of illegal immigrants (as do other factors, which are beyond our policymaker's power). Your answers to the questions are like levers of a giant machine--which is assumed to lead to the intended outcomes. Too bad you didn't answer those questions because depending on those answers, the alternatives may justifiably be ignored.

Nope, I still say you have it backwards. Its not that I don't understand what you are trying to say, I am saying you have it wrong.

Although politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups may benefit from an influx of low wage workers, these are still incompatible goals for other politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups, so your claim isn't self-evident. The "ruling class hypothesis" which you're espousing can't account for a specific outcome from competing groups. In other words, your claim is dubious, and it wouldn't be reasonable for me to take it as truth--given the previously mentioned problem with it.

Nope, you are taking this as if it were one very broad issue. I am saying it is a series of specifics. To begin, "politicians, bureacrats, and interest groups" don't all benefit from the influx of low wages. Only specific industries benefit. Those specific industries are key enough to our economy that other groups cater to them, particularly agriculture.

You have, in many other debates dismissed the import of agriculture. That is where your mistake lies. You judge only from the top. I look from the base.

I can get into this more another day. Right now, just looking for some light entertainment.

(RE: your A). Player, the issue is about illegal immigrants seeking legal means to defend themselves. Taxing those who work without paying taxes doesn't address this problem, so I fail to see how your response is relevant. Besides, requiring the employer to enforce this would be disastrous, since the employer is already a cause of the disputes over a contract. Now, the employer will oversee enforcement? That's not reasonable.

No real contracts are involved... that is the real issue. If there were no threat of deportation, then there would be no need for illegal aliens to hide from law enforcement. And no, employers will not "oversea enforcement". The IRS will oversee enforcement, just like it oversees all federal taxes. Per the other... its why we have whistleblower protection, because the employer holds the "big guns" or in this case, the paycheck.

When illegal aliens are generally given a "pass" in criminal investigations .. that is, questioned about crimes by police, without having their legal status investigated unless they are actually commmitting other crimes themselves, crime overall goes down a bit.

(B) Privatization of the monopolized legal system, or some shift toward freer markets is relevant, because this is a legal issue. Maybe you forgot that it was a legal issue? If the public court system is actually very effective, then why does forced labor and modern forms of slavery exist in the US? You do realize that you're implying that the legal system is in no way responsible for this problem, right? (to say otherwise, would contradict your claim that the legal system is very effective).

Except, its not really a legal issue, thats just what the right wing likes to pretend. Its an economic issue primarily (though there are side legal issues that arise as a result of this)

Why does the public court system fail to address the unintended consequences of US immigration policies? It's apparent that the public court system on this issue (which is the topic) is not "actually very effective."

A. most of the public court system is not set up to deal with immigration at all.. that is because its their job to enforce peace, not investigate whether folks are here legally if they are not causing other problems.

B. Local police and courts have found that the harm caused by drug traffickers and such is greater than the harm caused by illegal immigrants. Also, they just don't have the federal tools to investigate illegal aliens. When localities do the investigating, then discirimination is far more often the result than true enforcement.

You answered "Yes, very much so," to my question, "Is this failure to seek legal redress due to their inability to partake in the US legal system?" If the public legal system is "actually very effective," then why would you agree that the failure of illegal immigrants to seek legal redress is due to their inability to partake in the US legal system"?

See above.
If they are allowed to be here legally, then there is no need for enforcement. Without the threat of deportation, the regular legal system is fully accessible to them.

[Juan_Bottom]

[PLAYER57832]

In truth, its both... and many more. Most field workers are not children.
Some are white, some are women, though many more are Latino males.

BUT.. this is no longer the only face of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is now about skilled carpenter jobs, meat cutter jobs, cleaning jobs and various other jobs that white suburban folks would indeed like to have....along with the agriculture workers.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ugh. " Effectiveness of enforcement on illegal immigration" is not an assumption. It's a title.
Below the title are questions which a policymaker faces. You see, the enforcement on immigration affects the influx of illegal immigrants (as do other factors, which are beyond our policymaker's power). Your answers to the questions are like levers of a giant machine--which is assumed to lead to the intended outcomes. Too bad you didn't answer those questions because depending on those answers, the alternatives may justifiably be ignored.

Nope, I still say you have it backwards. Its not that I don't understand what you are trying to say, I am saying you have it wrong

Because of your "ruling elite hypothesis" or because you say so?

If it's the former, I'll move onto the next quote. If it's the latter, then you're being illogical.

Without explaining how the top assumptions are wrong (whatever they may be in your rotating imagination), then you have nothing as a defense. Currently, you're arguing "you're wrong because I say so."

Although politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups may benefit from an influx of low wage workers, these are still incompatible goals for other politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups, so your claim isn't self-evident. The "ruling class hypothesis" which you're espousing can't account for a specific outcome from competing groups. In other words, your claim is dubious, and it wouldn't be reasonable for me to take it as truth--given the previously mentioned problem with it.

Nope, you are taking this as if it were one very broad issue. I am saying it is a series of specifics. To begin, "politicians, bureacrats, and interest groups" don't all benefit from the influx of low wages. Only specific industries benefit. Those specific industries are key enough to our economy that other groups cater to them, particularly agriculture.

You have, in many other debates dismissed the import of agriculture. That is where your mistake lies. You judge only from the top. I look from the base.

That in no way refutes my argument. You're still being irrelevant without even explaining why. Then you insert two other claims which are unsubstantiated (top v. down Derp derps).


Until then, the following response of mine remains intact and correct:

(RE: your A). Player, the issue is about illegal immigrants seeking legal means to defend themselves. Taxing those who work without paying taxes doesn't address this problem, so I fail to see how your response is relevant. Besides, requiring the employer to enforce this would be disastrous, since the employer is already a cause of the disputes over a contract. Now, the employer will oversee enforcement? That's not reasonable.


(B) Privatization of the monopolized legal system, or some shift toward freer markets is relevant, because this is a legal issue. Maybe you forgot that it was a legal issue? If the public court system is actually very effective, then why does forced labor and modern forms of slavery exist in the US? You do realize that you're implying that the legal system is in no way responsible for this problem, right? (to say otherwise, would contradict your claim that the legal system is very effective).

Why does the public court system fail to address the unintended consequences of US immigration policies? It's apparent that the public court system on this issue (which is the topic) is not "actually very effective."


You answered "Yes, very much so," to my question, "Is this failure to seek legal redress due to their inability to partake in the US legal system?" If the public legal system is "actually very effective," then why would you agree that the failure of illegal immigrants to seek legal redress is due to their inability to partake in the US legal system"?

I can get into this more another day. Right now, just looking for some light entertainment.

Until then, you're wrong.


CC, why do I do this? Why do I occasionally respond to this person?

No matter what logical and correct argument I put forth, it's wrong according to her imagination. Is there any hope of progress for this type of person? Or would such a hope be mere wishful thinking?

After years of being on CC, she hasn't even learned to properly quote. What does that suggest about her capacity to learn?

[BigBallinStalin]

oh hai Phat_Bottom!

[Symmetry]

After years of being on CC, she hasn't even learned to properly quote. What does that suggest about her capacity to learn?

After years on CC, you should know different. Player's flaw isn't that she doesn't know how to quote. If anything she's tireless in quoting and responding to every part of an argument. A lapse now and again ain't good reason to make a plea to the masses.

Still, good to see you took my advice and went for rhetoric rather than logic as the discipline of argumentation.

[BigBallinStalin]

After years of being on CC, she hasn't even learned to properly quote. What does that suggest about her capacity to learn?

After years on CC, you should know different. Player's flaw isn't that she doesn't know how to quote. If anything she's tireless in quoting and responding to every part of an argument. A lapse now and again ain't good reason to make a plea to the masses.

Still, good to see you took my advice and went for rhetoric rather than logic as the discipline of argumentation.

Haha, there's plenty of logical arguments beforehand. I just ran out of them, so I felt like moving on to something else.


As for the rest of your post, I'ma be nice and say nothing.

[thegreekdog]

Wait, what is this?

Question #2 - A Mexican, living in Mexico, makes $1US a day at her job. She leaves Mexico and comes to the United States wherein she makes $4US a day at her job. Ignoring whether either of these situations is slavery, are we more concerned with her position in the United States or her position in Mexico? I ask because if the motivations of illegal immigrants are to get higher paying jobs in the United States than in their home country, why are we not questioning the economics of the home countries?

Question #3 - Apple + China - google it. What do you think? Slavery? Do we not care because it's Apple? Do we not care because it's in China?

[PLAYER57832]

Wait, what is this?

Question #2 - A Mexican, living in Mexico, makes $1US a day at her job. She leaves Mexico and comes to the United States wherein she makes $4US a day at her job. Ignoring whether either of these situations is slavery, are we more concerned with her position in the United States or her position in Mexico? I ask because if the motivations of illegal immigrants are to get higher paying jobs in the United States than in their home country, why are we not questioning the economics of the home countries?

Because if they come here, they buy things and pay some taxes.

Question #3 - Apple + China - google it. What do you think? Slavery? Do we not care because it's Apple? Do we not care because it's in China?

I care, but the fact is we have little say over what happens in China. Just because a few businessmen here are making money off of China now does not suddenly turn them into a either a free market or particularly Democratic state.

[PLAYER57832]

Ugh. " Effectiveness of enforcement on illegal immigration" is not an assumption. It's a title.
Below the title are questions which a policymaker faces. You see, the enforcement on immigration affects the influx of illegal immigrants (as do other factors, which are beyond our policymaker's power). Your answers to the questions are like levers of a giant machine--which is assumed to lead to the intended outcomes. Too bad you didn't answer those questions because depending on those answers, the alternatives may justifiably be ignored.

Nope, I still say you have it backwards. Its not that I don't understand what you are trying to say, I am saying you have it wrong

Because of your "ruling elite hypothesis" or because you say so?

Its your "ruling elite hypothesis", not mine. I simply explain the reality, which is far more complex than a group of people in a back room controlling the world.

If it's the former, I'll move onto the next quote. If it's the latter, then you're being illogical.
Without explaining how the top assumptions are wrong (whatever they may be in your rotating imagination), then you have nothing as a defense. Currently, you're arguing "you're wrong because I say so."[/quote]

LOL.. classic BBS.

You bring up irrelevant assumptions, ignore any real information I present and go on to concentrate on inanities.

The "ruling elite" hypothesis is your assumption, not mine. I explained a far more complex, and real system.

Although politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups may benefit from an influx of low wage workers, these are still incompatible goals for other politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups, so your claim isn't self-evident. The "ruling class hypothesis" which you're espousing can't account for a specific outcome from competing groups. In other words, your claim is dubious, and it wouldn't be reasonable for me to take it as truth--given the previously mentioned problem with it.

Nope, you are taking this as if it were one very broad issue. I am saying it is a series of specifics. To begin, "politicians, bureacrats, and interest groups" don't all benefit from the influx of low wages. Only specific industries benefit. Those specific industries are key enough to our economy that other groups cater to them, particularly agriculture.

You have, in many other debates dismissed the import of agriculture. That is where your mistake lies. You judge only from the top. I look from the base.

That in no way refutes my argument. You're still being irrelevant without even explaining why. Then you insert two other claims which are unsubstantiated (top v. down Derp derps).


Until then, the following response of mine remains intact and correct:

(RE: your A). Player, the issue is about illegal immigrants seeking legal means to defend themselves. Taxing those who work without paying taxes doesn't address this problem, so I fail to see how your response is relevant. Besides, requiring the employer to enforce this would be disastrous, since the employer is already a cause of the disputes over a contract. Now, the employer will oversee enforcement? That's not reasonable.


(B) Privatization of the monopolized legal system, or some shift toward freer markets is relevant, because this is a legal issue. Maybe you forgot that it was a legal issue? If the public court system is actually very effective, then why does forced labor and modern forms of slavery exist in the US? You do realize that you're implying that the legal system is in no way responsible for this problem, right? (to say otherwise, would contradict your claim that the legal system is very effective).

Why does the public court system fail to address the unintended consequences of US immigration policies? It's apparent that the public court system on this issue (which is the topic) is not "actually very effective."


You answered "Yes, very much so," to my question, "Is this failure to seek legal redress due to their inability to partake in the US legal system?" If the public legal system is "actually very effective," then why would you agree that the failure of illegal immigrants to seek legal redress is due to their inability to partake in the US legal system"?

I can get into this more another day. Right now, just looking for some light entertainment.

Until then, you're wrong.

Yes, you cannot answer, so instead you attack my quotes, or other inanities.

The REAL issue here, which you deign not to consider is that agriculture, fuel and water usage are at the root of our economic system. They are the basis upon which everything else depends.

Cheap agricultural labor is very fundamental to that system's function.

[heavycola]

my quotes, or other inanities.

When the time comes for someone to write a history of this forum, this should be its title.

[jgordon1111]

Wait, what is this?

Question #2 - A Mexican, living in Mexico, makes $1US a day at her job. She leaves Mexico and comes to the United States wherein she makes $4US a day at her job. Ignoring whether either of these situations is slavery, are we more concerned with her position in the United States or her position in Mexico? I ask because if the motivations of illegal immigrants are to get higher paying jobs in the United States than in their home country, why are we not questioning the economics of the home countries?

Question #3 - Apple + China - google it. What do you think? Slavery? Do we not care because it's Apple? Do we not care because it's in China?

We care not to have over a billion chinese get pissed and do to us what we have to most of the rest of the world.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ugh. " Effectiveness of enforcement on illegal immigration" is not an assumption. It's a title.
Below the title are questions which a policymaker faces. You see, the enforcement on immigration affects the influx of illegal immigrants (as do other factors, which are beyond our policymaker's power). Your answers to the questions are like levers of a giant machine--which is assumed to lead to the intended outcomes. Too bad you didn't answer those questions because depending on those answers, the alternatives may justifiably be ignored.

Nope, I still say you have it backwards. Its not that I don't understand what you are trying to say, I am saying you have it wrong

Because of your "ruling elite hypothesis" or because you say so?

Its your "ruling elite hypothesis", not mine. I simply explain the reality, which is far more complex than a group of people in a back room controlling the world.

If it's the former, I'll move onto the next quote. If it's the latter, then you're being illogical.
Without explaining how the top assumptions are wrong (whatever they may be in your rotating imagination), then you have nothing as a defense. Currently, you're arguing "you're wrong because I say so."

LOL.. classic BBS.

You bring up irrelevant assumptions, ignore any real information I present and go on to concentrate on inanities.

The "ruling elite" hypothesis is your assumption, not mine. I explained a far more complex, and real system.[/quote]

Although politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups may benefit from an influx of low wage workers, these are still incompatible goals for other politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups, so your claim isn't self-evident. The "ruling class hypothesis" which you're espousing can't account for a specific outcome from competing groups. In other words, your claim is dubious, and it wouldn't be reasonable for me to take it as truth--given the previously mentioned problem with it.

Nope, you are taking this as if it were one very broad issue. I am saying it is a series of specifics. To begin, "politicians, bureacrats, and interest groups" don't all benefit from the influx of low wages. Only specific industries benefit. Those specific industries are key enough to our economy that other groups cater to them, particularly agriculture.

You have, in many other debates dismissed the import of agriculture. That is where your mistake lies. You judge only from the top. I look from the base.

That in no way refutes my argument. You're still being irrelevant without even explaining why. Then you insert two other claims which are unsubstantiated (top v. down Derp derps).


Until then, the following response of mine remains intact and correct:

(RE: your A). Player, the issue is about illegal immigrants seeking legal means to defend themselves. Taxing those who work without paying taxes doesn't address this problem, so I fail to see how your response is relevant. Besides, requiring the employer to enforce this would be disastrous, since the employer is already a cause of the disputes over a contract. Now, the employer will oversee enforcement? That's not reasonable.


(B) Privatization of the monopolized legal system, or some shift toward freer markets is relevant, because this is a legal issue. Maybe you forgot that it was a legal issue? If the public court system is actually very effective, then why does forced labor and modern forms of slavery exist in the US? You do realize that you're implying that the legal system is in no way responsible for this problem, right? (to say otherwise, would contradict your claim that the legal system is very effective).

Why does the public court system fail to address the unintended consequences of US immigration policies? It's apparent that the public court system on this issue (which is the topic) is not "actually very effective."


You answered "Yes, very much so," to my question, "Is this failure to seek legal redress due to their inability to partake in the US legal system?" If the public legal system is "actually very effective," then why would you agree that the failure of illegal immigrants to seek legal redress is due to their inability to partake in the US legal system"?

I can get into this more another day. Right now, just looking for some light entertainment.

Until then, you're wrong.

Yes, you cannot answer, so instead you attack my quotes, .

Yes, I address what you say. It's time-consuming, and apparently for naught if you keep changing your stance, change the meaning of words, fail to explain how an assumption is false, and fail to address the core of my arguments. With you, these conversations tend to become pointless, but thanks for trying.

The funniest part was that time when your logic led you to conclude that Zimbabwe is a hallmark of a government.

[thegreekdog]

Because if they come here, they buy things and pay some taxes.

No, I mean why aren't you concerned with working conditions in Mexico?

I care, but the fact is we have little say over what happens in China. Just because a few businessmen here are making money off of China now does not suddenly turn them into a either a free market or particularly Democratic state.

No, I mean why aren't more people boycotting Apple when their CEO makes more in an hour than 20 of his employees make in a year.

[Woodruff]

I care, but the fact is we have little say over what happens in China. Just because a few businessmen here are making money off of China now does not suddenly turn them into a either a free market or particularly Democratic state.

No, I mean why aren't more people boycotting Apple when their CEO makes more in an hour than 20 of his employees make in a year.

As BBS says, it's "opportunity costs". I boycott Wal-Mart completely (it's actually the only business I boycott at all), due to a number of their business practices. If I were being completely non-hypocritical, there would likely be many businesses that I would boycott, and I do wish it were that way. Unfortunately, many of those other businesses are simply things that are too costly for me NOT to boycott, and so I have to make the choice not to do so. Wal-Mart happens to fall within the "displeases me enough to offset my need of them" margin.

Apple does suck, though. Just not as much as MicroSoft.

[thegreekdog]

I care, but the fact is we have little say over what happens in China. Just because a few businessmen here are making money off of China now does not suddenly turn them into a either a free market or particularly Democratic state.

No, I mean why aren't more people boycotting Apple when their CEO makes more in an hour than 20 of his employees make in a year.

As BBS says, it's "opportunity costs". I boycott Wal-Mart completely (it's actually the only business I boycott at all), due to a number of their business practices. If I were being completely non-hypocritical, there would likely be many businesses that I would boycott, and I do wish it were that way. Unfortunately, many of those other businesses are simply things that are too costly for me NOT to boycott, and so I have to make the choice not to do so. Wal-Mart happens to fall within the "displeases me enough to offset my need of them" margin.

Apple does suck, though. Just not as much as MicroSoft.

I'm not concerned with people who boycott some businesses and not others. While that may be seen as hypocritical to some, I understand your point and I make the same determinations. I also do not shop at Walmart for similar reasons I suppose. I possess two Apple products (and ipad and an ipod), neither of which were purchased with my own money. That does not mean I won't purchase other Apple products in the future.

What I see as hypocritical is when politicians and/or the politically-motivated public make an issue of shipping jobs overseas and make it a rather large issue (for them), when they do not understand the costs associated with making things that they own in the United States and when they do not apply their vitriol and anger across the board to all companies. In other words, if someone (like a hardcore Democrat senator, representative or presidential candidate) rails against Bain Capital while typing on his or her iphone, that annoys me. I've taken a similar position when referencing the Occupy Wall Street protests - if you're going to go on about the rich, don't block traffic so the construction worker can't get to work and don't type shit on your iphones. In both cases, it makes the people look stupid.

[PLAYER57832]

Because if they come here, they buy things and pay some taxes.

No, I mean why aren't you concerned with working conditions in Mexico?

What makes you think I am not?

I care, but the fact is we have little say over what happens in China. Just because a few businessmen here are making money off of China now does not suddenly turn them into a either a free market or particularly Democratic state.

No, I mean why aren't more people boycotting Apple when their CEO makes more in an hour than 20 of his employees make in a year.

Some are, but to live in today's society, you pretty much have to use some Apple products. You also pretty much have to use petroleum products.

Boycotts work when there is a viable alternative. Today, there really isn't. Even companies that try not to use Apple products wind up using components and/or certain technologies.

For my part, I don't buy much of anything new, and mostly have been given the computer equipment I have. (business discards and/or gifts from family).

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national ... 96976.html

NBC Bay Area’s Investigative Unit spent weeks penetrating the close-knit and tight-lipped community of migrant workers and found dozens of children working the fields in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys – some who started work at 11-, 10- and even 8-years of age.

While an 8-year-old could not work in an office or fast-food restaurant, a 1938 law allows them to legally work in agriculture.

And these, for the most part, are not illegal immigrants, but children born here in the United States.