You don't know the difference between immigration and declared war???
Geez, Sam, you're pretty fuckin' amazingly stupid today ...what are you smokin' or drinkin'?
Baron Max
Immigration Ethics
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
You don't know the difference between immigration and declared war???
Geez, Sam, you're pretty fuckin' amazingly stupid today ...what are you smokin' or drinkin'?
Baron Max
Let me see, one involves actually getting off your ass to work hard and the other involves killing people sitting in a plane or tank so you can steal their stuff.
Yeah, and giving the profits to the government to hand out to the illegal immigrants for essential social services that SHOULD BE for legal citizens.
Hey, Sam, does India allow illegal immigrants into India ....and provide them with all of the essentials services that Indian citizens get? Is that normal in India?
Baron Max
You misunderstand me. If all nations have the right to determine who enters their borders and who doesn't... why doesn't this apply to the citizens of the Sioux Nation?
Of course, even American companies are investing dollars that are hot off the presses and have no intrinsic value!
You misunderstand me. If all nations have the right to determine who enters their borders and who doesn't... why doesn't this apply to the citizens of the Sioux Nation?
It did - and they lost the contest.
Come on, be serious. If you want to discuss invasions rather than immigration, you should put it in an entirely different thread. THEN, we can talk about England, the Germanic Tribes, Spain, Portugal, etc.. etc.
What contest?
Come on, someone clear this up for me.
You don't think the contradictions revealed by comparing opinions on the two side by side make for... interesting reading?
What contest?
Come on, someone clear this up for me.
Posession of the land, of course!
Not in the least!! It's comparing apples and oranges. They are two totally different subjects.
So your view is.. not 'might makes right', of course - goodness me - but, er.. 'may the strongest be victorious'? Something like that.
If China decides to annex the US and succeeds, this is ok with you?
Ethically speaking, you're all over the place here. You do see that?
Unless you want to provide me with some kind of unifying philosophy so that I can make sense of all this.
Other than 'might makes right', of course.
"All over the place ethically?" Nope. You can call it "might makes right" if you please. However, I'd prefer to say whomever has posession of the land decides who they want to allow in peacefully (immigration). Conquest - or the attempt of - is a different subject. Need I remind you the title of this thread is "Immigration Ethics" - not armed conflict.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
America,England,France and Spain all participated in various wars of conquest over the indians and various other idiginous populations. societies grow up and figure out new and better ways to solve disagreements and gather resources. every living thing organizes itself to keep things outside and in. My main problem with immigration is that it can and has become exploitation. These human beings are often crowded into apartments that are 1/2 to 1/4 the size of an average citizens apartment. They do this because that is the only way that they can survive on the wages they earn for doing some really crappy and unhealthy work. People have said that they only do jobs that Americans are to lazy or don't want to do. That is untrue. If the jobs paid better then Americans would do them. The excess labor drives down wages and they can't even complain because they are afraid. Who needs a whip for these economic slaves? Why should we only exploit third world citizens in their own countries when we can have them deliver themselves here to be exploited. The only people hurt are criminal aliens and the poor and under educated who deserve no better. We can even say that is for their own good and their own choice. We are such a benevolent empire.
You bet.
Legitimacy is based on the power to enforce ownership. As we can enforce it we are the legitimate owners.
Correct.
Rights don't objectively exist. They require humans to invent and enforce them.
Rights don't objectively exist.
Ethics don't objectively exist.
There is no objective benefit for the USA to do that.
Rights don't objectively exist. The USA invents and enforces its own rights.
The USA of course.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
They are good for nothing.
Then why do legal residents keep hiring them.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Some people are willing to pay for a virtual slave labor force, even if they provide inferior service. However, we do not need illegal immigrants here. People like to think they form some sort of a backbone to the country's economy, but that's really a bunch of horseshit. I used to live in Connecticut and that state had a small number of illegals running around. Back then, CT was the richest state in the country. Clearly, we got along just fine without the mexican hordes.
Of course the fact that they are cheaper is a factor, but people bring them into their homes to take care of their houses and children, for example.
Oh, I'll keep her on, she's cheaper and provides inferior service taking care of my children
doesn't really cut it.
And in general to classify them as 'good for nothing' is just silly. They are a range of humans who like other groups have a range of skills and work ethics, etc.
As a response to me this is a strawman. We've gone from 'they are nothing' to 'they are not the backbone of this economy'. There is a whole range of possibilities in between. Further there is no reason to see them as nothing, whatever the need for them or lack of it in the US economy.