What Obama is all about, check it out

While we're talking about illegal mexicans, from the L. A. Times

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien

Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County.)

11. Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.

 
I think illegal immigration is one of the most important issues we face. Yet, I don't remember it coming up once during the debates, its very strange to me how irrelevant shit like abortion and gay marriage are more important issues than this problem.
 
just curious, what sort of implications would there be on our economy if all the illegals were out of the country tomorrow.

how many businesses are dependent on cheap illegal workers, to provide a low cost labor enableing them to turn high profits? Even if you replaced the illegal workers with Americans, you'd end up with the businesses being unable to pay minimum wage for the legitament workers.

I understand your view on illegal immigrants, nut what are your thoughts on the businesses that depend on illegal workers? (operating under the assumption that illegals really do make up a significant portion of a work force required for product creation)

 
allow responsible working immigrants on temporary visa's from all countries. We don't need to rely on Mexico, look at the health care industry, much of it is staffed by African's. And if an employer is reaping the benefits of illegal labor with high profits then they deserve to burn.
 
word. if we took all the illegal immigrants out of the workforce right now, our entire country would come to a grinding halt and we'd be even more fuck than we are right now. in more cases than not, illegals are here to help support their families back at home where they would have had no opportunity to do so otherwise. i've worked with a fair share of illegals and they are all extremely hard working people who are here soley to support their families at home. one guy i know spent a month to get here, works 4 jobs, lives in a one bedroom apartment with 9 other people and still sends the majority of his money home to his family in Guatemala. you can't just kick people out of the country because they don't pay taxes. that's like saying we should kick the homeless off the streets because they don't have homes. if the legalization process wasn't so rediculous, difficult, and beurocratic, more aliens might actually go through the process.
 
wow? the mexicans you worked with were all workers huh? That's shocking. What about the Mexicans you met in your gang?
 
i think you missed the point, right now the current system is dependent on the fact that illegals are getting paid way under minimum wage. If you have to have legitimate workers, you'll have to pay them legitimate wages.

it is my understanding that the current system will not function, grind to a halt as said, if the situation above replaces the illegals.
 
sorry, i missed the part about letting the businesses that are dependent on illegals burn.

That'd be ok, except that the products being produced through cheap illegal workers is food, you let the food producers burn, we all burn.

What i'm trying to point out is, while sclado may infact have a valid point that the illegals are putting burden on our society, it's not so simple a problem where we can just kick them all out. Out society is burdened in one way, but benifits in another.

what can you do right now?
 
Wrong, this is the most flawed view on illegal immigration of them all. Less than 10% (some estimates say less than 5%) of illegals are working those farm field jobs that you're talking about.

My dad and I have even argued this with our Congressman when he was over for lunch a while ago. The congressman used the example of a glass of wine, saying how the wine was much cheaper because of illegal immigrant labor. However, my dad countered with "Perhaps this wine is cheaper when I buy it at the supermarket, but how much does this wine really cost me? When you factor in the indirect costs of increased taxes payed to fund expanding law enforcement, welfare, and prisons due to this problem, is this bottle of wine really only costing $15? I'd rather pay $30 dollars for this bottle of wine and have a decrease in my taxes." The congressman had no way to refute this point at all.

This partially explains my cynicism towards democratic politicians and just politicians in general. How could my dad and I know more about the subject than someone who is involved in the upper echelons of government? But the congressman's view must be resounding among his peers since its apparent that they love to do nothing about the problem.

No food producer is "dependent" upon illegal labor. Its simply that if the guy next door hires illegals, then he can bring his product to market for a cheaper price. Look at it like outsourcing to China, but within our own borders. If one business goes to China, they all have to so that they can compete with the cheaper prices. If no businesses were able to hire illegals, then no business would be "dependent" upon them.

 
neither of us have first hand testimony on what the framers' intentions were regarding the constitution- we can only speculate. Moreover, intentions are not what drives legislation or "service based redistribution"- only the text of hte constitution so your point is moot.

And while ours is still around, we should probably obey the laws...

Our federal government has no right to fund federal education programs. They can grant aid to states, but why not just have the states collect revenue and do it themselves, rather than bind themselves to some Federal carrots?
 
probably not a whole lot...

remember when the illegals formed that parade to see what the effect would be and there was a very negligible one?

Most companies hiring illegals are agricultural and theyre subsidized anyway....
 
I agree and disagree cause really if we are already facing over poplulation in some areas and if we made it really easy to get into the country anyone and everyone would move here. We dont want to turn into to a china with a billion people cause that would cause a shitload of other problems we dont need. I do think there are good moral illegal immigrants who just want to support there families and then there are bad ones who are criminials. Just like there are regular people who are good and bad.Although crime and murder is not a justifiable, it is a little understandable when you think about the struggle those people face to get basic things most other people have.
 
what about kids from your town who dropped out of school to sell drugs? you can't pull an argument apart by asking rhetorical questions.
 
Exactly. It would be like saying "the only white people I've dealt with were doctors, so all white people are doctors". When in fact, very few white people are doctors.
 
they should expect to go through the process if they want to have the rights of a US citizen. "ridiculous" wouldn't be a word i'd choose to describe the naturalization process...you can't just snap your fingers and become naturalized, its the same with any process when you're dealing with the government (how long does it take to get a passport? oh yeah, months) and yes i realize those are two very different things, but nothing is easy when you're dealing with government on a more than local scale.
 
how is it not ridiculous? you said it yourself. we live here and it takes months to get a passport. that's ridiculous.
 
what in the fuck are you talking about?

How is my point moot?! What im saying is our country is built on federalism which is both implicitly and explicitly written in the constitution (amendment X all powers not delegated to the national government are reserved for the states). What you are trying to promote is income redistribution and national education programs by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Im saying you can't regard the intentions of the framer's mindset (who by the way were wealthy elitists who believed in elitism to their very bones, hence our republic system) when you pass proposed legislation. You can only regard the text of the constitution. And to burst your bubble, no federal entity has the right nor power to provide universal healthcare, education, or redistribute income.

There is a major difference between a program of welfare and progressive taxation. One is legal, the other is not.
 
Firstly, why you're using the word "regard" in this context baffles me. I assume you're trying to sound smart, but just say "look at".

Secondly, constitutional interpretation has attached to it a long history of common law authority, in US jurisdiction and elsewhere (the judicial committee of the privy council in the UK being a good example), and you're massively oversimplifying the process. Interpretation may be limited to the four corners of the document itself (this is a debatable position to begin with), but it must be purposive, and must take into account the nature of the document as a "living tree", to use the classic analogy. The basic nature of a working constitution is that meanings of its provisions change over time to meet the developing needs of the society it pertains to. Your views on this subject betray a superficial understanding of constitutional law.
 
you havent tried yet so obviously you have no idea what im talking about... and no one has really proven me wrong yet, they have just called me things like cunt because they dont want to believe the truth.
 
Since "double capital gain" doesn't actually mean anything whatsoever, I actually have to assume that it's you who has no idea what he's talking about. It makes almost as little sense to say "double capital gains tax", because the tax system for capital gains is incredibly complicated and can't just be "doubled".
 
i don't think its ridiculous really, i was just saying it takes a long time for any process to go through on a level like that. i don't think becoming an american citizen should be one stop shopping, if you get what i'm saying.
 
wow JD i would think you to be smarter than that... I meant regard as in refer to or to consider- to keep in mind so to speak- when passing future legislation. If you missed the implied context of my sentence, that your own idiotic mistake so don't accuse me of using words i don't understand. I guarantee you my writing and english education far outweighs yours.

Moreover, what the fuck do you know about the legal interpretation of the constitution? There is absolutely no "taking into account the nature of the document as a "living tree", to use the classic analogy." The document as a living tree metaphor is refers to the precedence in which new legislation is passed. for example the executive summary or personal comments the president leaves when he signs a bill is taken as legislative text rather than nonsense now.

I think both of you are forgetting the point here is that new legislation cannot be passed unless it has some sort of constitutional grounds. no shit the constitution changes THROUGH SUPREME COURT precedence setting cases, but the fact that we are founded upon federalism doesn't.

Also, i fully believe you have no fucking clue what you are talking about, so before you use that tone with me, look at your own consitutional knowledge. If you knew what you were talking about you would agree with me, because what i am talking about refers to the most recent "living tree" change of the constitution.

Yes, in the 1940's with the stone court you coudlve had heavy taxation as FDR greatly increased the federal government's power over the states. Mainly using the commerce clause in art1sec8, cases such as Wickard v. Filburn almost eliminated federalism, but the courts back then were threatened with court packing from none other than FDR.

Thanks to Lopez v United States, we're back on par with legality in regards to federal legislation.

The fact that you do think what im talking about is constitutional interpretation, not the fact that we have dual federalism in this country betrays a non-existant understanding of constitutional law.
 
I think it's fairly obvious that he's referring to the capital gains rate. Which, can be doubled. If the capital gains rate went from 15% to 30%, one could say that it doubled.
 
please don't belittle yourself to nothing more than a mosquito. At one point you actually had posts worth reading.
 
sorry, ive been writing papers and studying for tests all week (midterm hell week), and im trying to finish all my shit before my parents and gf get here to visit tonight. i promise the thoughtful posts will return, they just arent in my mental capacity right now hahahaha
 
1. I have a degree in English. So no, it doesn't far exceed mine (outweigh, once again, was not the word you were looking for).

2. What I know about constitutional interpretation would be derived from the fact that I take constitutional law, in law school. I also take tax law, if that helps you at all.

3. If you had as much expertise as you claim in statutory interpretation you would know that choosing your words carefully is of the utmost importance, and saying "you know what I really meant" doesn't excuse your failure in this instance. If you're too arrogant to admit a simple "idiotic mistake", that would be another shortcoming attributable only to you.

4. I never made any mention of federalism, nor the division of specific taxation powers within the US, I merely corrected your statement that the text of the constitution is all that matters when determining legislative authority. That is an incredibly superficial view on the matter, and would be so irrespective of whether your thus-far underwhelming education exceeded mine or anyone else's.

5. The interpretation of a constitutional document is fundamentally different from interpretation of legislation, so all of this blathering about various instances of statutory interpretation (the phrase "we're back on par with legality in regards to federal legislation" being particularly meaningless) is neither here nor there.

For someone who professes in-depth knowledge of the law, you really didn't say much at all there. I know this is a website, but midless drivel does not cease to be mindless drivel by virtue of its author's citation of a couple of case names. Given your mere passing acquaintance with coherence, If I had been mistaken as to the thrust of what you were writing, I would argue that such a misunderstanding would be entirely forgivable.
 
You are an arrogant prick.

If you are even nearly as educated as you claim to be, you wouldn't feel the need to clutter your sentences with completely unecessary word choices. Wow, "implied context"? That phrase is officially misused...and out of context.

It's obvious that you are attempting to come across as superior through your obnoxious verbosity, and instead, you have ended up looking like a fool with a thesaurus.

Just shut up already.
 
welp buddy thats how mr obama has explained it. no it wont be doubled but close enought to where its going to suck when it happens.
 
Haha, I would have assumed that someone who would take the time to correct someone elses grammar wouldn't add the gramatically incorrect -ly syllable onto ordinal numbers. First, Second, Third. Not firstly, secondly, thirdly. Maybe if you're going to be an ass an do that you should be intelligent enough to know what your talking about. Leave his grammar alone.
 
You really need a copy of Fowler's... The notion that this is somehow gramatically incorrect is a lie propogated by high school teachers to students along with "never start a sentence with a preposition". For the stylistically incompetent, these "rules" are actually merely advisable. However, if you'll refer to the OED, you'll find that "firstly" as opposed to "first" has strong historical roots, and what was good enough for 18th century novelists is good enough for me. You can accuse my writing of being dated, and I will not take offense. But it isn't gramatically flawed.
 
Sorry, that should have been end a sentence with a preposition, whereas supposedly one never starts a sentence with a conjunction. Neither are rules.
 
The word "thither" was once popular as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that using it would make you sound like a fool. My point is that your argument began with you being an ass to the kid, and it had nothing to do with the discussion. I don't need to reference my copy of Fowler's, I already know how not to sound like an idiot. "Firstly" is entirely unnecessary when one could simply sound intelligent and say "First". That was my point.
 
However, both are (once again) foolish and unorganized ways of writing. If you are trying to convince me that your writing sounded better than the corrections I made (to make a point irrelevant to this discussion), then I think you should go waste your time elsewhere. Perhaps you could spend it writing a column about how you are smart and everyone elses opinion is stupid and having it published for money. That is your apparent attitude on the site anyway.
 
but the guy is smart, and more educated on the subject at hand than you and me. I am not sure what possesses him to argue to such lengths with an arrogant little asian kid who thinks he knows everything after 1 year of college as a poli sci major, or a guy named KUSHBLUNTS though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top