Should "Illegal" Immigrants Be Deported?

Thats ridiculous. I've clearly outlined how I would prevent corporations from doing this, and it has nothing to do with their emotions.

Exactly my point, it supports the former to the detriment of the latter.

,

I certainly never said anything to the effect that globalization's purpose is to improve living conditions. My whole argument has been based around the fact that, as practiced today, globalization does not increase the living standards of most of the people effected. As to it sucking money out of the West, its true in the sense that corporations are paying wages to people outside of the west as opposed to the people in the west, however, the product and profit of the labor of the third world is being sucked INTO the west at a rate whose value far exceeds that of the money that is being invested.


Right now the market is doing well, but hordes of people are unemployed.

And if there was a country in which people could be payed a penny an hour it could employ hundreds of people. That doesn't mean that it would be a good thing. That American laborer would be making enough money to support his family comfortably and also increase demand for consumer goods by having disposable income to spend on them. Those 25 chinese workers would be making barely enough to take care of themselves.

Once again, you can't be a consumer unless you make enough money to buy consumer goods.

You're the one making the argument that low wages and bad working conditions overseas are a necessity.

They don't want them, because they can get cheap labor elsewhere. If that were no loner the case they would want them again.

Even if, god forbid, wal-mart went bankrupt, someone would step in to fill the demand with US made goods.

The same people who are now employing unskilled laborers in sweatshops overseas. The jobs that Mexican workers are doing now would not be so terrible if they were subject to US labor laws.

Its never been put into practice in the way I suggest before. I see no reason why it would not be sustainable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just to throw another monkey in the wrench ....

Property is robbery.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i dont feel like reading through all the thread to see if it's been written before.. but..

isn't "illegal immigrant" a semantic oxymoron?

"immigrant" would be legal
if it's "illegal" then the so-called immigrant is nothing than an infiltrator

unless all countries repeal their borders, join hands and start dancing around the fire singing socialist songs, infiltrators should be dealt with as infiltrators. (i.e. to kick them out)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well already you are simply asking questions JPS that is indicative of a man who merely has no points. You're basic logic is simple, and can quickly be discerned:

i) Corporations are dependant on the State
ii) Since they are dependant they are bound by that states laws.
iii) They will want to increase labour standards because in the long run it will be better for them.
iv) The world will have better and more employment.

There are serious flaws in your logic:

i) TNC are called TNC's for a reason, they are not dependant on one state only.
ii) No political party in the US will dare ostracize her biggest campaign contributors for a principle.
iii) The current administrations goal is to have a globalize American economy that benefits the rich.
iv) You are assuming that ppl care about the Average worker, that is simply not true.
v) Workers are not indispensable, thus even in the US there will be lower wages due to competition for limited jobs.
vi) If the government does close the borders to nations that maintains low living standards, those states could also apply sanctions damaging the US economy two fold.
vii) Even if the US could make goods, they would not be sufficient for demand, and they will be more expensive. Thus demand dries up, and the economy collapses.
viii) Millions of jobs will be lost not gained in the US, the only way the US can make jobs if she "de-globalizes" is if the government makes jobs for them, creating a debacle in the budget, inept, and uncompetitive industries.
ix) The US imports $500 billion worth of goods, there is a reason for that. Because those goods are more competitive, cheaper, and sometimes of higher quality then American goods.
x) You from the posts I have read, are ignorant of past failures of the economic system you propose, my suggestion is :

> Mixed Economy- UK (which is exactly what you want)
> North Korea
> Argentina- 1970'-80's
> Soviet Union

 

Mexico could levy economic sanctions against the U.S. in response to the U.S. stemming the flow of illegals across the border? Sanctions against what?
This is completely non-sensical.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but you've got your terminology backwards again. If supply wasn't sufficient to keep up with demand, then the price would rise. What specific product are you referring to that would precipitate an "economic collapse" if said product were to rise in price?

I never realized the U.S. economy was such a delicate little flower.

 

I count three questions in my last post, two h of which were rhetorical and one of which was asking you to give an argument for an unsupported assertion.
Perhaps you should have read it before responding.

i) the state grants them a charter, and has the right to revoke it, therefore they are dependant on the state in that sense, however that was never part of my argument and has no real relevance here
ii)they ARE in fact bound by the laws of whatever state they operate in. This is a fact. This is why they try to find the state with the weakest laws.
iii)I never said corporations want to increase labor standards.
iv) the world would have better employment if the steps I've proposed(not the ones you're pretending I've proposed here) were taken.

I know I said I wouldn't respond to any further "its not going to happen therefore it wouldn't work if it did, but it occurs to me that maybe you really don't grasp the principle.
I will endeavor to explain it to you: I am arguing that if certain steps were taken certain results would happen, this could be symolized as "if A then B" You are attempting to argue that I am wrong: "It is not the case that 'if A then B'
In order for you to show that my argument is wrong, you must show not that B is not the case or that A is not the case but that B would not be the case if A were the case.
Attempting to argue as you are that A is not true therefore it is not the case that "if A then B' is akin to saying that adding a third penny to a pile of two pennies would not yield three pennies because you don't have a third.

This argument started with me saying that I think the borders should be opened and you attacking my statement. Now you are apparently arguing against your own position by saying we should not close the borders.
Perhaps you ran out of arguments for your position, and decided to switch sides. Good move.

Goods can still be made around the world, just under reasonable labor laws.

I've already explained why this is not the case.

You, from the posts I've read, have not been reading my posts and therefore are in a poor position to pass judgement.

Your suggestion is a list of countries?

 

Perhaps you should have read it before responding.

I did and the only thing that wasn't redundant was those questions. The other things I alluded to before.

i) the state grants them a charter, and has the right to revoke it, therefore they are dependant on the state in that sense, however that was never part of my argument and has no real relevance here

Of course it is of relevance, if x states HQ is in Bermuda what can y state do against it? It would be unfair trade practice if it slapped sanctions on a foreign company who just happens to sell in the US. The state my geo-centric friend you keep on reverting to is the US, as if it were the world. Look at a atlas please...maybe then you can understand what globalization means.

ii)they ARE in fact bound by the laws of whatever state they operate in. This is a fact. This is why they try to find the state with the weakest laws.

Exactly this makes your point above irrelevant.

iii)I never said corporations want to increase labor standards.

I know, what you want is for them to increase labour standards. Forcing it down their throats, that doesn't seem like "freedom" to me, does it to you? Aren't you being a hypocrite here?

iv) the world would have better employment if the steps I've proposed(not the ones you're pretending I've proposed here) were taken.

You have proposed nothing, all you have been saying is overly generalized, statements, and one word answers like "yes". There is nothing you have said that hasn't been tried before (what little you did say), please I urge you learn about the Mixed economy in the UK. I want to learn about it first before you respond to this.

I know I said I wouldn't respond to any further

Why do you then? Lack of will power? I shouldn’t expect a response to this then?

blah

Nice, attempt there jps.

This argument started with me saying that I think the borders should be opened and you attacking my statement. Now you are apparently arguing against your own position by saying we should not close the borders.

No what I took issue was this:

Which is advocating closed borders, you did not start off sir with "open borders" I will ask you not to lie again.

Perhaps you ran out of arguments for your position, and decided to switch sides.

LOL!

Goods can still be made around the world, just under reasonable labor laws.

Who the hell is going to be able to afford them?

I've already explained why this is not the case.

Was that you're infamous "yes" answer that solves all the problems? You haven't shown me anything to persuade me to even consider what you are saying. I want to see some stats to show what you are saying please.

You, from the posts I've read, have not been reading my posts and therefore are in a poor position to pass judgement.

I have read them, and nothing but redundancy has come of it. Eventually yes I did get sick and tired of reading the same unsupported and generalized positions over an over again.

Your suggestion is a list of countries?

I can clearly see you are very limited, ADD? ADHD? Think, countries, economies...you cannot connect dots.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When you rephrase the same arguments over and over, ignoring the flaws pointed out, the response will inevitably be similiar. The fact that you having stated that my post was only questions, you still did not answer them, is revealing.

I've already explained how corporations can be controlled internationally. You continue to respond to arguments I didn't make. Its a good debate tactic if you're assertions can't be supported I suppose.

So you think there should be no labor standards at all? Any standard has to be pushed down corporations throats as standards hurt their profits. I'm more interested in the freedom of individuals than that of corporations.

I've clearly outlined my approach and supported it countering every argument you brought up(often repeatedly). The fact that you are now abandoning debate and saying things like this doesn't change that.

I felt it might be useful to you in further debates, but I can see it went right over your head. You should really consider taking a logic course.

This argument started with me saying that I think the borders should be opened and you attacking my statement. Now you are apparently arguing against your own position by saying we should not close the borders.

Look at my first post. I say it explicitly. I'll ask you not to lie again, although given the pattern I can see it will be fruitless. Saying that the way in which the global market currently effects third world countries is worse than their not participating in it is not advocating closed borders, its opposing corporate globalization. People can be free to come and go without corporations being able to.

Obviously if everyone's being paid good wages there will be more people able to buy more products. I've made this abundantly clear I think.

My argument is not based on statistics and cannot be given that what I'm proposing has not been tried. You're the one who consistently responds to my arugments with insults, irrelevant statistics, and debate of seeming different topics. I've already responded to this at least once before, and dont' feel like doing it again.

I'm not psychic, I'm not going to make a guess at what you're trying to propose with your list of countries. A proposal would need to contain full sentences.
However at this point don't bother because I'm done with you, much of this debate has been spent with me responding to the same arguments over and over, and going in circles, which I have no desire to do further.
Your last posts declaring that I haven't made any arguments while offering no response to the arguments that are there unchallenged for anyone to see does not change the fact that you have proved unable to respond to them.

 

what military? Ours? No way

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/iraq/1040.html

 

Yes I think they should be deported.

 

Personally I have a bigger problem with white trash scumbags who already live here (we call them Chavs).
They invariably live off state welfare benefits, and petty crime - The sort of people who would laugh in your face if you ever suggested that they should make a contribution to the country where they live - we're stuck with these fuckers, at least you can deport an immigrant.

I say we send them away and bring in some motivated immigrants.

 

But this is white people's land, if you didn't want to come into contact with chav scum you shouldn't have come here. It's karma at work isn't it?

It's like a white person emigrating to Afghanistan, and then complaining about the turban wearing, Taliban supporting, Afghani lower class who spend all day cultivating heroine poppies and shooting their AK47's into the air. Or Thavs as I prefer to call them; Turban Headed And Violent.

Why can't these goddamn Thavs get an education and do something useful?

Anyway, don't be so elitist in future.

 

Not exactly - we have a culture of immigration going back millenia (I'm a 30th generation viking immigrant) - and not exclusively white folks.
But does that mean white immigrants are OK?

Ha Ha Ha! - and you are calling ME elitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I assume your mother is Scandinavian.

Any immigrants are O.K.in small doses.

 

race traitor
reform or your days are numbered!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

these tards were thinking along the same lines

 

1775 - "Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man's advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. Where are the Delewares? They have been reduced to a mere shadow of their former greatness. We had hoped that the white men would not be willing to travel beyond the mountains. Now that hope is gone. They have passed the mountains, and have settled upon Tsalagi (Cherokee) land. They wish to have that usurpation sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Tsalagi (Cherokees). New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Tsalagi (Cherokees) and their fathers have so long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of the Ani Yvwiya, The Real People, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will be permitted to stay only a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the miserable Tsalagi (Cherokees), the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than to submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will hold our land."

- Chief Dragging Canoe, Chickamauga Tsalagi (Cherokee)

what a retard
whitey, riddled with disease, breeding like rabbits, was more than a match for them

1838 - All Indians in Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama "removed". Dragging Canoe's lands are racially cleansed of his and all other native people

 

LOL.

See how far you get with this garbage...

Workers of the World Unite, Tiassa!

 

a bit of a side note
instance of govts invoking eminent domain is on the rise
your home aint your castle
its walmart's

 

Then who is going to pick the strawberries and mow the lawn?

Also, it is kind of hard to remove 10+ million people...

 

Just because it is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.