<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 07:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is it not stealing? Do they have a legal right to the job they work? If not, that would be stealing. -Petey</div> Just like how the 15 year old kid getting my lawn mowed tax free is not stealing. He still needs to provide his service in order for me to give him money. Following your logic, if my uncle sells me his car for far less than a dealership, then he's stealing the right of the registered car dealer to sell me a car. </div> Just to add another example: I once had a serious problem with my truck. I had talked about it over lunchtime with my coworker. He had an idea, he offered to do all the labor, for $100, and I buy the parts. He did the work for me, and I was up and running again at very minimal charge. The thing is, automechanics is not his proffession and he never did it for a living in the traditional sense of working from a shop. He was just handy. Following your logic, My coworker is *stealing* work from the dealership, who would have fixed my car at an enormous cost to me. Guess what, there wasn't any sales tax involved, and the work was completely untraceable to people who care about when you pay your taxes. I have absolutely no problem with this, and you may call it stealing all day long for all I care. </div> Your examples of above are not stealing under the assumption they are citizens. The US is based on a system of free commerce for their citizens. Not for the citizens of Mexico, Canada, China, France... They kid has a legal right to mow your lawn. Your uncle has a legal right to sell you his car. -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your examples of above are not stealing under the assumption they are citizens. The US is based on a system of free commerce for their citizens. Not for the citizens of Mexico, Canada, China, France... They kid has a legal right to mow your lawn. Your uncle has a legal right to sell you his car.</div> Makes no difference. If my coworker came from Mexico on a passport, fixed my car, and I paid him, I still don't consider his work stealing. Also, you are wrong about " The US is based on a system of free commerce for their citizens. Not for the citizens of Mexico, Canada, China, France..." San Francisco, for example, is a US city whose economy is primarily based on tourism. Tourists can come from any other country, and it is not illegal for tourist to walk into McDonalds and order himself a cheeseburger. By definition that is commerce between an american and a foreigner within the US borders. Free commerce. The kid *might* be too young by law to work, but they will look the other way. Technically, I am a criminal for paying him to work. Or, I could ask a foreign friend, who might be a world famous architect in his own country, to come visit me. I then pay for materials, and commision him to build an elaborate birdhouse in my backyard. Again, we are stealing from the local contractors. Again, I really don't think it matters. Foreign workers that work in the US should be given consideration for citizenship. We should speed up the process and stop the non-sense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> I'd rather have this guy as U.S. Attorney who says some things you may or may not agree with and who is 125-0 in Criminal prosecutions of some of my state's most corrupt and polarizing figures, than some schmuck who says all the right things but doesn't do anything about it.</div> Except he misrepresented the law. It's not about agreement, it's about not giving people misinformation when speaking as an expert. It's even worse than when Giuliani made the same false comment a year ago, with the difference being that Giuliani was speaking as a past US Attorney. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he's taken down some of NJ's most corrupt. But I admit that if he's willing to misrepresent a basic legal principle in public, I wonder what else he either doesn't know or ignores... </div> given his record, his comments come off as a little "I am the law, and I have declared the following to be true." His words combined with his actions suggest that he views himself as a benevolent dictator. This attitude can rub people the wrong way. You and I are aware of what the real law says. His declaration of non-enforcement is a different matter. </div> This is what promulgation is about. GW Bush didn't have the authority to simply declare no funding of abortions overseas, for example. The provision to ban such funding was written into the law (Title X, I do believe), but that part of the law wasn't promulgated under the Clinton administration, and was promulgated under the GHW Bush administration. "I am the law" is truly delegated to those who represent us, even in the US Attorneys, and it is fine and proper, IMO. I keep bringing up jaywalking for a reason. it's against the law, there's criminal penalties, etc. Yet you won't see it promulgated - the police chief or DA proclaiming that the law must be enforced. Like the provisions AEM posted, they're in the law just in case there's a reason to use it, and most likely in individual cases. Like if a jaywalker causes a 50 car pileup/accident, gets off and can't be tried again due to double jeopardy, but CAN be tried for a different crime (jaywalking).
Update: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation by Brian Donohue/ Star-Ledger staff Tuesday April 29, 2008, 12:03 PM Noah Addis/ The Star-Ledger U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie speaks at First United Methodist Church of Dover on SundayThe office of U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie on Monday issued a statement addressing criticism of remarks he made regarding illegal immigration at a church forum in Dover Sunday. In response to a question from an audience member, Christie said that immigrants are not committing a crime by being in the country illegally. Monday, Christie said that while entering the country illegally is considered a federal misdemeanor, simply lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation. "I can only enforce the laws that they give me," Christie said at the forum sponsored by the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and the First United Methodist Church of Dover. Christie's comment drew criticism from Morristown Mayor and Democratic congressional candidate Donald C. Cresitello, as well as scores of comments on Internet message boards. Critics called his statements incorrect, and indicative of a lax approach to immigration enforcement by the federal government. Monday, Christie's office is sued a written statement defending the comments, saying they accurately reflected federal law. "He did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act," the statement read. "It is not."</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Q: Christie said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true? A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation. Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too? A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail. It is considered difficult to prosecute because unless authorities catch someone in the act of crossing the border, it is easier to just deport them than spend the time and money needed to prove how they crossed the border. Even in border states, first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted because the court system would be inundated with millions of cases. Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other? A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the coun try after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"He did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act," the statement read. "It is not."</div> Mr. Christie, is this glass in my hand half full, or half empty? I wonder what he would say. His answer is extremely important. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the coun try after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.</div> Wow, that's a huge stat. Fully half of illegal immigrants are not breaking the law when the enter the country. I'm guessing that a lot of them are international students attending American colleges? I wonder what a further breakdown of these demographics would reveal.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 06:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sure it works. When new kids come up in our system, they have the option and will work in many different fields. We need X number of doctors, police, engineers, construction workers, farmers for every Z number of new population. This does not drive down the cost of anything. It simply just <u>scales up at the same ratios with population</u>. I bet that the son of the lifetime farm worker decides that he loves what his dad has been doing, but feels his true calling is that of a firefighter. His sister might decide she wants to be a school teacher. Have you ever heard of something called a "recruiter". They have those in many professions, like the military. All these things are important, and it only takes a generation or two to see this play itself out.</div> This is how you lay out a plan on paper. But this isn't how it would work out or how others think it would work out. In the late 70's and late 80's the Chinese gov had 2 forms of currency. A foreign currency and a local currency. They (the gov) distrubuted the foreign currency to their citizens regardless of occupants. Then when foreigners visited they would issue them the 'foreign' currency. Now they had the same face value. When you went to a tourist spot, you could you the same noted value of either version of the currency to pay for the food, sights, hotels. BUT when you left China, if you wanted to convert you money, they would only convert the foreign version. This devalued the 'local' currency, which forced international companies (freighting and airlines) to only accept the 'foreign' version. This was done so the skilled citizens of China won't be able to leave. Doctors, bankers all the higher paid professions would had left China. Apply that theory to your proposed system. Open up the gates. Who are the type of people who will first migrate to the US? Would that cause a flood of skilled workers?</div> I hope so, I'd like to benefit from their skills! <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yes it would take time to sort out, but how is it only 2 generations? You won't care if your son or daughter's profession was flooded with a whole slew of laborers? Is the US's obligation to take care of their own first?</div> The nice thing about the system Raider's talking about is that people typically choose their professions with those things in mind. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>While there are more laws added yearly. How are they enforced? While not as extreme as what was witnessed with Paris Hilton, but as was noted during her trial, most people arrested for DUI in California serve a portion of their sentence as they get a certain amount of days off for 'good behavior'. How does that curb the # of DUI? -Petey</div> It doesn't. If people knew enforcement would be extreme in every instance, they'd not do the crime. However we'd also be upset when we see perfectly good people get their lives screwed up by excessive penalties. Because we don't like that, we selectively under enforce things.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 30 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 06:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sure it works. When new kids come up in our system, they have the option and will work in many different fields. We need X number of doctors, police, engineers, construction workers, farmers for every Z number of new population. This does not drive down the cost of anything. It simply just <u>scales up at the same ratios with population</u>. I bet that the son of the lifetime farm worker decides that he loves what his dad has been doing, but feels his true calling is that of a firefighter. His sister might decide she wants to be a school teacher. Have you ever heard of something called a "recruiter". They have those in many professions, like the military. All these things are important, and it only takes a generation or two to see this play itself out.</div> This is how you lay out a plan on paper. But this isn't how it would work out or how others think it would work out. In the late 70's and late 80's the Chinese gov had 2 forms of currency. A foreign currency and a local currency. They (the gov) distrubuted the foreign currency to their citizens regardless of occupants. Then when foreigners visited they would issue them the 'foreign' currency. Now they had the same face value. When you went to a tourist spot, you could you the same noted value of either version of the currency to pay for the food, sights, hotels. BUT when you left China, if you wanted to convert you money, they would only convert the foreign version. This devalued the 'local' currency, which forced international companies (freighting and airlines) to only accept the 'foreign' version. This was done so the skilled citizens of China won't be able to leave. Doctors, bankers all the higher paid professions would had left China. Apply that theory to your proposed system. Open up the gates. Who are the type of people who will first migrate to the US? Would that cause a flood of skilled workers?</div> I hope so, I'd like to benefit from their skills!</div> This would really hurt the middle class, creating a larger gap between the poor and rich. If there were a flood of doctors, what would that do for their wages? Go down. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 30 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yes it would take time to sort out, but how is it only 2 generations? You won't care if your son or daughter's profession was flooded with a whole slew of laborers? Is the US's obligation to take care of their own first?</div> The nice thing about the system Raider's talking about is that people typically choose their professions with those things in mind.</div> I know your children are much younger, but what if you had a kid who was in Medical School, almost completed and won't have a job when he finishes? How about with Engineer? Or anything skilled? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 30 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>While there are more laws added yearly. How are they enforced? While not as extreme as what was witnessed with Paris Hilton, but as was noted during her trial, most people arrested for DUI in California serve a portion of their sentence as they get a certain amount of days off for 'good behavior'. How does that curb the # of DUI? -Petey</div> It doesn't. If people knew enforcement would be extreme in every instance, they'd not do the crime. However we'd also be upset when we see perfectly good people get their lives screwed up by excessive penalties. Because we don't like that, we selectively under enforce things. </div> While true, what is the bigger issue? -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 08:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your examples of above are not stealing under the assumption they are citizens. The US is based on a system of free commerce for their citizens. Not for the citizens of Mexico, Canada, China, France... They kid has a legal right to mow your lawn. Your uncle has a legal right to sell you his car.</div> Makes no difference. If my coworker came from Mexico on a passport, fixed my car, and I paid him, I still don't consider his work stealing. Also, you are wrong about " The US is based on a system of free commerce for their citizens. Not for the citizens of Mexico, Canada, China, France..." San Francisco, for example, is a US city whose economy is primarily based on tourism. Tourists can come from any other country, and it is not illegal for tourist to walk into McDonalds and order himself a cheeseburger. By definition that is commerce between an american and a foreigner within the US borders. Free commerce. The kid *might* be too young by law to work, but they will look the other way. Technically, I am a criminal for paying him to work. Or, I could ask a foreign friend, who might be a world famous architect in his own country, to come visit me. I then pay for materials, and commision him to build an elaborate birdhouse in my backyard. Again, we are stealing from the local contractors. Again, I really don't think it matters. Foreign workers that work in the US should be given consideration for citizenship. We should speed up the process and stop the non-sense. </div> What happens when everyone takes this attitude? Money leaves the country? -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 30 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This would really hurt the middle class, creating a larger gap between the poor and rich. If there were a flood of doctors, what would that do for their wages? Go down. I know your children are much younger, but what if you had a kid who was in Medical School, almost completed and won't have a job when he finishes? How about with Engineer? Or anything skilled?</div> That's not true. A US company *wants* to hire more US born-and-raised PhD's. The problem is, our children are no longer <u>seeking</u> PhD's in the proportions that they did in the 1960's. In the 2000's, Asia alone, has been churning out about 3 times the amount of PhD's than natural born US citizens. This also includes foreign born Asian people who will come here for the first time to go to school, and then get a job right here when they get out. The number of engineering jobs available has <u>increased</u>, but US citizens are not keeping up with that demand. So what are US companies supposed to do? Not fill the position? <u>They can't find enough qualified candidates from their own local pool of talent</u>. So distinctions need to be made when you make blanket generalizations about rich/poor. Every kid in our country has an oportunity to earn himself an achedemic scholarship and get a graduate degree. The problem is, they are choosing not to, and other countries have picked up the ball and run with it.
furthermore, I saw this for my own eyes while attending a few community colleges recently. Many schools here that have science programs, like computer science, have begun scaling their classes way back, because prospective students are no longer choosing to get into those professions. The people that attend community colleges are our very own natural born citizens. As you know, community colleges are one of the things that help students with lower incomes increase their higher education. Again, this is not the foreigners fault! Its our own damn fault for being so lazy!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 30 2008, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 30 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This would really hurt the middle class, creating a larger gap between the poor and rich. If there were a flood of doctors, what would that do for their wages? Go down. I know your children are much younger, but what if you had a kid who was in Medical School, almost completed and won't have a job when he finishes? How about with Engineer? Or anything skilled?</div> That's not true. A US company *wants* to hire more US born-and-raised PhD's. The problem is, our children are no longer <u>seeking</u> PhD's in the proportions that they did in the 1960's. In the 2000's, Asia alone, has been churning out about 3 times the amount of PhD's than natural born US citizens. This also includes foreign born Asian people who will come here for the first time to go to school, and then get a job right here when they get out. The number of engineering jobs available has <u>increased</u>, but US citizens are not keeping up with that demand. So what are US companies supposed to do? Not fill the position? <u>They can't find enough qualified candidates from their own local pool of talent</u>. So distinctions need to be made when you make blanket generalizations about rich/poor. Every kid in our country has an oportunity to earn himself an achedemic scholarship and get a graduate degree. The problem is, they are choosing not to, and other countries have picked up the ball and run with it. </div> Exactly. I am not an economics guru by any stretch of the imagination. It IMO sounds like simple supply & demand. FWIW; its seems like Americans have become obsessed with the glamour jobs and/or easy money. Hence, the number of attorneys, doctors, & (shudder) Investment bankers/Stockbrokers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 30 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>furthermore, I saw this for my own eyes while attending a few community colleges recently. Many schools here that have science programs, like computer science, have begun scaling their classes way back, because prospective students are no longer choosing to get into those professions. The people that attend community colleges are our very own natural born citizens. As you know, community colleges are one of the things that help students with lower incomes increase their higher education. Again, this is not the foreigners fault! Its our own damn fault for being so lazy!</div> So are you saying big businesses shouldn't be blamed for moving jobs overseas? -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ May 1 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 30 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>furthermore, I saw this for my own eyes while attending a few community colleges recently. Many schools here that have science programs, like computer science, have begun scaling their classes way back, because prospective students are no longer choosing to get into those professions. The people that attend community colleges are our very own natural born citizens. As you know, community colleges are one of the things that help students with lower incomes increase their higher education. Again, this is not the foreigners fault! Its our own damn fault for being so lazy!</div> So are you saying big businesses shouldn't be blamed for moving jobs overseas? -Petey </div> That is not what I am saying. When they move the whole company overseas, they drive all the wages and salaries down. Research and Development is not moving overseas. Manufacturing is. For years, northern California, Austin,TX, and Boston, MA have had kept their companies here in the states. The difference now, is that a vast majority of the people working for those companies are not born US citizens, like they were in the '60's. They would like to fill jobs with local talent, but we don't have enough. So they import them. So where do American fit into all this? We lose our manufacturing job, and we aren't smart enough to work at the highest professional level at these companies. We've basically lost, as a country. Like BA was saying, people are now likely going to pursue banking and legal. Unless you are willing to move out of country, your options are shrinking.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 30 2008, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 30 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> I hope so, I'd like to benefit from their skills!</div> This would really hurt the middle class, creating a larger gap between the poor and rich. If there were a flood of doctors, what would that do for their wages? Go down.</div> That would be a tremendous benefit to the poor and middle classes, which have faced dramatically rising health care costs. Flooding the market with doctors would reduce costs (or at least slow the growth, allowing for wages to catch up) for everyone. The only people it would "hurt" would be doctors. But by your logic, you're concerned about a large gap between rich and poor. Well, which one of those two groups does doctors fit into? Rich. Which group of people do the beneficiaries fall into? Poor. Thus, you'd actually promote income equality by increasing the supply of doctors (which will reduce the cost of medical service). <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 30 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yes it would take time to sort out, but how is it only 2 generations? You won't care if your son or daughter's profession was flooded with a whole slew of laborers? Is the US's obligation to take care of their own first?</div> The nice thing about the system Raider's talking about is that people typically choose their professions with those things in mind. I know your children are much younger, but what if you had a kid who was in Medical School, almost completed and won't have a job when he finishes? How about with Engineer? Or anything skilled?</div> Raider is exactly right. There is an extreme shortage of skilled workers in these fields already. That's a major reason (but not the only one) we're facing such high costs for things like health care. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So are you saying big businesses shouldn't be blamed for moving jobs overseas?</div> Absolutely they shouldn't. Should you be blamed for not cooking or growing all your own food at home? By and large, things for the average Joe who's not a doctor or lawyer aren't lost. For one thing, the actual poverty rate is a fair amount lower today than it was in the heyday of manufacturing. Unemployment is still quite low, it's not like people don't have jobs. And while we tend to romanticize the past and denigrate the present, turning screws and working on assembly lines wasn't exactly fulfilling work either. The pay differentials that "force" families to have two incomes are based on several things, I think, all of which could stand improvement. 1. I'm in favor of immigration, but a completely unfettered inflow of unskilled labor obviously reduces wages. It also reduces costs for all sorts of things, so this somewhat offsets the wage reductions. We get less for many things, but we also pay less than we might for all sorts of things. 2. I think it's pretty clear that people's preferences for how they live their lives have changed. Women entering the workforce in wider numbers puts increases the supply of labor and reduces wages just like immigration. Likewise, it reduces costs, but there are different issues as well. The bigger one is that women and men both are willing to do this because they are simply not as willing to stick together as they were back in the "old days". Now people get divorced or don't get married in the first place. One one hand you can say the "decline in family values" is a bad thing economically, but this can very often be misleading. Now an unhappy marriage "shows up" economically as two single people trying with limited success, to make it on their own because they don't stay together. In the past, this might have shown up economically as a married family that stuck together. That doesn't mean these people were actually happy together though. Very often people were miserable but felt like they were morally obligated to stick together. This is to say the economic outcomes we see appear worse because you can actually calculate the economic cost now. In the past, the economic cost wasn't there but it doesn't mean people were happier. In practice they were often much less happy and stuck in abusive relationships. 3. The tax burden appears to have increased significantly and we've gained very little from the additional burden. I've read several things that point out much of the increase in the cost of living between now and 30-40 years ago is increased tax burden. We pay more for houses and cars but we get bigger houses and cars. We pay more for medical care but despite our gripes people would certainly prefer today's medical care to that the prior time period. We pay a lot more in taxes, do we get any better government for it?
