TX Man Tries To Burn Down Mexican Consolate--Anti-Immigration motive suspected
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:33:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  TX Man Tries To Burn Down Mexican Consolate--Anti-Immigration motive suspected
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: TX Man Tries To Burn Down Mexican Consolate--Anti-Immigration motive suspected  (Read 2136 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2014, 12:52:24 AM »
« edited: November 30, 2014, 12:55:50 AM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Really, what is the "problem" with illegal immigration? If your issue is just with the fact that people are violating the law, just change the law so people have no incentive to violate it (ie, make it possible for anyone who wants to enter the US to do so). And before you bring up terrorists and the like, I'm not saying we should abolish all border checkpoint, just that we should allow anyone who wants to work to enter and become a citizen.

Our politicians claim to believe in sovereignty and claim to seek an immigration policy that works. If such is impossible, then yes I agree the answer is inevitably that no policy or at the very least a policy of letting everyone in or wants in is the honest approach to take.

I am too much of a realist to view that as practical. There is a threshold beyond which any good thing becomes too much, too overwhelming and though Libertarians simply rely on the free market to guide people to the best location I have too much compassion to dump a bunch of working class people, many of who will never break out of their income strate into a region that is doomed long term because of lack of water as an example. I also have issues with flooding low skilled fields that already are rather flooded thanks to the economy these past decades. You have to give people a chance to get ahead and and wage increases are rare enough as it is, we don't need to be making them fewer and farther between.

Certain natural factors have to be considered and thereofre you have to set a limit and once you set a limit, you are obligated to enforce as much as practical to maintain that limit. Otherwise, you shouldn't have the limit at all.

I also don't think a reasonable policy is impossible to enforce
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2014, 01:28:29 AM »

But during the recession, those people did respond to market forces. Illegal immigration slowed and many people who were here did "self deport" as there were no houses to build, no houses to clean, no restaurant customers whose dishes to wash, etc.

Again, if there is no work for them, they can't just stick around. They are scared of getting arrested and if they aren't making any money here, it isn't worth the risk. Quit believing the party Kool-Aid about the illegal Hispanic equivalent of Cadillac-driving welfare queens.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2014, 02:25:40 AM »

Why is that every person I discuss this with cannot have a respectful conversation but must always resort to strawmanning and outright inserting words into my mouth based on some preconcieved notions by people who should fing know better based on many years of interactions? Quit the damn psycho-analytical/behaviorialist deconstruction and have a real conversation for a change. Roll Eyes

But during the recession, those people did respond to market forces. Illegal immigration slowed and many people who were here did "self deport" as there were no houses to build, no houses to clean, no restaurant customers whose dishes to wash, etc.

A critical insight that answers your previous question on how to do enforcement in an affordable manner. Start with the workplace.

Quit believing the party Kool-Aid about the illegal Hispanic equivalent of Cadillac-driving welfare queens.

I cannot begin to comprehend what key word or phrase you hinged off of in my post to somehow feel motivated to post such a response to what I said. Roll Eyes Your bias for independent affiliation, has clouded your judgement man, for I can assure you my immigration views are formed by independent thought. Also, last I checked the party line was contrary to my views as well, so I don't see how I am drinking party Kool Aide. Seems you are still preferring to lob (non) partisan barbs in lieu of a real conversation as well. Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2014, 02:30:56 AM »

"An independent who puts party first", yet doubts the veracity of others claiming idiosyncracy. Interesting. Tongue
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2014, 02:43:22 AM »
« Edited: November 30, 2014, 02:45:49 AM by Deus Naturae »

A critical insight that answers your previous question on how to do enforcement in an affordable manner. Start with the workplace.
Aside from the fact that E-Verify is simply inaccurate (as well as my civil libertarian concerns related to a National ID card), mandating that employers subject every new hire to an expensive and lengthy background check would increase labor costs significantly, which always has the effect of disemploying marginal workers - hurting the very low-skilled domestic workers you seek to help.

As for your claim that a liberalized immigration policy would lead to the unemployment and impoverishment of domestic workers who lack skills, if foreign workers are truly better at doing their jobs, it makes little sense to prevent them from doing so anymore than it makes sense to prohibit the use of labor-saving devices to ensure that manual laborers remain employed (not to mention it's fairly nativist to suggest that the economic wellbeing of domestic workers trumps that of foreign ones - not trying to accuse you of anything, just pointing out the logical implication of your argument). I'm not trying to dismiss the unemployment of poor natives as a non-issue, but surely there are better solutions for creating new jobs for them as opposed to imposing protectionist restrictions against immigrants who are simply better at doing their current jobs?
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2014, 02:50:52 AM »
« Edited: November 30, 2014, 02:52:41 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

NCYankee, it's very difficult to hold a decent conversation with you about immigration because your goals in opposition to most posters on this forum: you think it's desirable to deport undocumented immigrants in order to decrease levels of immigration and to uphold the law. Frankly, I don't understand why you care about immigration as a policy issue. It's more than a little suspicious for some white guy to barrage the forum with posts about immigration in threads that are about completely different subjects, as you've done on many different occasions. I'm not accusing you of being racist or xenophobic but it's atypical for conservative white guys, who are opposed to "amnesty", to feel passionately about immigration unless they're vile racists.

In short: I'd like to understand the roots of your motivation to unrelentingly discuss immigration policy. Why are you concerned? Why do you hold the views that you do? This isn't an interrogation or anything and you don't have to respond. I hope that I'll be better able to discuss immigration policy with you in a serious manner because I asked you these questions.
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2014, 02:58:37 AM »

How long until another major far-right terrorist attack? It's going to happen at some point.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2014, 02:43:53 AM »

NCYankee, it's very difficult to hold a decent conversation with you about immigration because your goals in opposition to most posters on this forum: you think it's desirable to deport undocumented immigrants in order to decrease levels of immigration and to uphold the law. Frankly, I don't understand why you care about immigration as a policy issue.


If you are going to set a limit, 500,000, or 1, 2, or even 3 million per year. Whatever the limit you deem is the maximum the country can realistically take in without causing negative consequences (massive population shifts do cause instability and lead to the undesirables to act out. The revival of the KKK fed off of the Great Migration, inflow of Southern and Eastern European Immigrants after World War II, and the false red scare perceptions also), you have to maintain it. Whether it is economic, or avoiding a kook resurgence, or environmental or whatever, there is a ceiling a natural limitation that policy should not go beyond.

Once you have a limit, it therefore necessitates that you will deport those who come, otherwise the limit is a farse and should be removed for one. And second of all undermining the limit removes any motivations for others to respect it also. You can legalize all them that are here now, and this still remains a necessity in my view.

It's more than a little suspicious for some white guy to [/b]barrage the forum with posts about immigration in threads that are about completely different subjects[/b], as you've done on many different occasions. I'm not accusing you of being racist or xenophobic but it's atypical for conservative white guys, who are opposed to "amnesty", to feel passionately about immigration unless they're vile racists.

Considering that over 20,000 of my 30,000 posts are in the Atlasia boards and that issue rarely comes up in that game, it is staticially impossible for me to be barraging the forum with posts about such in topics that have nothing to do with it. In fact, the inverse was true when I broke down King's post and began discussion history in a thread devoted to immigration. This ia site for political analysis, for example, I read on Politico that Cassidy had done focus groups and immigration came back a strong point on which to hit Landrieu so I posted that when OC claimed that doing the Exeuctive Order before the election could have saved her. I wouldn't call that posting in threads that has nothing to do with it, WHEN HE RAISED THE ISSUE and I was responding to him.

The issue is in the news a lot recently and just like I have posted in reaction to angry greatness' stupid assertion that this is all I post about, such is simple not the case that I dwell on this issue all the time. I try to balance the discussion and bring it up where others have brought it up in a fashion that misses important aspects (like the LA race for example). How about this, perhaps it is because my posts stand out and are so incomprehensible motivation wise, that you two notice them when they are made and thus creates the perception I barrage the forum. As I said, aspects that others miss like the example I cited above and thus once again. It is perception, but it is far from reality.

In short: I'd like to understand the roots of your motivation to unrelentingly discuss immigration policy. Why are you concerned? Why do you hold the views that you do? This isn't an interrogation or anything and you don't have to respond. I hope that I'll be better able to discuss immigration policy with you in a serious manner because I asked you these questions.

I already answered this question, though it may have been in another thread. I view it through the lense of an issue of honesty in government. I think letting everyone who wants to come, come, is whilst maybe a desirable fantasy it is just that, an unrealistic fantasy and therefore you have to set a limit at some place based off the best scientific research as to what that is and then you have to be willing to enforce to maintain it. Regardless of how unusual this stance may seem to you I am fairly confident that most share it even if they disagree on that limit's exact number and desire legalization for those here now.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2014, 02:55:55 AM »

A critical insight that answers your previous question on how to do enforcement in an affordable manner. Start with the workplace.
Aside from the fact that E-Verify is simply inaccurate (as well as my civil libertarian concerns related to a National ID card), mandating that employers subject every new hire to an expensive and lengthy background check would increase labor costs significantly, which always has the effect of disemploying marginal workers - hurting the very low-skilled domestic workers you seek to help.

As for your claim that a liberalized immigration policy would lead to the unemployment and impoverishment of domestic workers who lack skills, if foreign workers are truly better at doing their jobs, it makes little sense to prevent them from doing so anymore than it makes sense to prohibit the use of labor-saving devices to ensure that manual laborers remain employed (not to mention it's fairly nativist to suggest that the economic wellbeing of domestic workers trumps that of foreign ones - not trying to accuse you of anything, just pointing out the logical implication of your argument). I'm not trying to dismiss the unemployment of poor natives as a non-issue, but surely there are better solutions for creating new jobs for them as opposed to imposing protectionist restrictions against immigrants who are simply better at doing their current jobs?

Who said anything about putting foreign workers below that of those already here. And what is your standard, those who came yesterday are working jobs that will be impacted by those today. It is nice to approach something philosophically to the farthest extent, but when you actually have to live it such becomes less practical. I just said at some point you reach a natural limit, perhaps that limit is so high we never have to worry about it, I don't know. I do know those with a vested interest are probably not the best ones to be determining those levels of immigration, affects my anti-corruption sensibilitie and sets off alarm bells. And if you believe in there is some limit beyond which you have to enforce, arbitrarily removing them at the behest of business is just another form of corporate welfare in my view.

If you are concerned about marginal workers though, continually flooding the market is not a good approach either.

I maybe a conservative Republican, and I maybe for freedom of trade but I am too much of a Pennsylvania Conservative Republican to not take a nuanced view of those things particularly when it comes to labor issues. Wink It is because of the water that we are all nuts (before anyone makes a fracking joke I left twelve years ago Tongue).
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2014, 11:55:15 AM »

The word is consulate, the building in which the consul performs his or her duties.

Consolate is an obsolete form of the verb to console.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2014, 01:20:33 PM »

But during the recession, those people did respond to market forces. Illegal immigration slowed and many people who were here did "self deport" as there were no houses to build, no houses to clean, no restaurant customers whose dishes to wash, etc.

Really? If you're going to be unemployed, you'd rather be unemployed in Mexico? The assertion is ridiculous, especially considering that the real risk is crossing the border to regain access into the US when the economy recovers. No one is self-deporting, especially not now that people believe they may be granted amnesty.

The entirety of the illegal/legal immigration debate hinges on the economic epidemic caused by regulators in the US and Mexico, and their unwillingness to treat anything other than the acute symptoms.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2014, 01:48:14 PM »

Those on the left need to realize that illegal immigration should not be encouraged in any way.

There needs to be strict penalties on those that hire them and the border needs to be secured and no illegal immigrant should receive any benefits from the government. How does it make sense that hard working Americans must pay for their crimes? It is a direct appeal to the Hispanic vote and nothing else.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2014, 01:57:28 PM »

I believe in zero tolerance for illegal immigration. However, what constitutes illegal immigration under current law is quite stupid.

The ancestors of most Americans today would have been illegal immigrants under this system. I would imagine close to 0% of Italian, German, and Chinese immigrants of the early 1900s would be have been able to pass the citizenship test and meet any of the legal requirements of the current US immigration process.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2014, 02:06:47 PM »

I wonder where the jfmtsc was during this incident? 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2014, 12:13:48 PM »

I wonder where the jfmtsc was during this incident? 
Why do you wonder?  Immigration was never one of his hot-button issues.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2014, 08:28:50 AM »

The word is consulate, the building in which the consul performs his or her duties.

Consolate is an obsolete form of the verb to console.

Check the thread title Snowy...  (TX Man Tries To Burn Down Mexican Consolate), then try to guess why I underlined that vowel Wink
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2014, 03:33:43 PM »

The word is consulate, the building in which the consul performs his or her duties.

Consolate is an obsolete form of the verb to console.

Check the thread title Snowy...  (TX Man Tries To Burn Down Mexican Consolate), then try to guess why I underlined that vowel Wink

Don't worry.  I think that most of us understood you.  I noticed it as well and was about to say something, but I saw that you beat me to it. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 11 queries.