You already admitted that it’s a meaningless analogy. Let’s correct it: say somebody does show up in your backyard and set up a tent. You walk out back and offer them $25 a week to mow the lawn. Do you still get to act pissy about the tent?
Sorry, but I’m not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. But just in case, can you point out which United Country of Native Americans immigration law my ancestors broke? Was there an optional legal path my ancestors may have chosen?
You accuse us of bad analogies and then bring up that horse turd?
If you’re not responsible for their actions, why do you have the right to benefit from them, exactly?
The actions of your ancestors are what you are basing your birthright on. If you have nothing to do with them, then why don’t we require you to go through the bureaucratic rigamarole of seeking legal status and citizenship?
Umm.. because the laws they set up say I have a right to them, and those laws are still in place?
Look, I don’t care if you think whitey is the evil suckzor and did bad to the Indians and all that. That’s an interesting discussion, but has nothing to do with current immigration law and current voting requirements. That’s a tangent road where you think you guys hope to find some moral victory.
The fact that I, a legal U.S. citizen can vote, and Jose the illegal landscaper can not, has nothing to do with how my ancestors may have treated Indians. This is about current immigration & voting laws and I have yet to see a compelling argument on why that needs to be changed.
Of course, that was an artifact of a system devised to prevent the biggest of the 13 states from overwhelming tiny ones and to prevent a regional bias from deciding an election. In state or municipal, if non-citizens can tip the balance in the state legislature or governor’s race, it was a toss-up anyway.
=
In Canada, if you work, you must have a Social Insurance Number. I know the local McD’s used to get burned when they hired kids who romised to go get one, then quit before they followed through. It was $100 fine for the employer. The goernment has means to catch people playing games with those numbers - at very least, if you share a number and have taxes withheld, the cost in taxes will be very high and will attract the authorities.
The rules for contractor here are also tight. It is tricky to treat an employee as a contractor. There are details like contractors have less supervision and set their own hours, term positiions, etc. If Revenue Canada decides these should have been employees, the back tax withholding and payroll taxes are paid by the employer - a pretty significant hit. If your “personal service” contracting sems to come mostly (>80%) from a single source, they will look at the arrangement closely to see if it is legit.
Of course, people play these sorts of games in Canada and hope they don’t get caught, but there is nothing like the problem I seem to see in the USA. If the Americans want to eliminate illegal labour, they need to start with the political will to do so. That would be much simpler than setting up Gestapo checkpoints and demanding papers.
I’m pretty sure that would have been true of every immigrant-wave in American history including the Ashkenazi Jews. Also including the white American population of 1776. It’s environment that makes up the difference. Many countries have raised their average IQ scores a standard deviation or more since WWII, with no significant changes in their gene-pools, just by improving sanitation, nutrition and education.
Well, we ain’t in one, not unless you mean the whole planet.
“Why, thanks! Here’s some firewater! Well, better pack . . . Eh? Yeah, we know where to get more . . .”
Absolutely false. Immigrants prior to 1965 heiled predominantly from countries whose demographics have historically had mean IQs of 100. After the 1965 Immigration Law change and by about ~1970, there are few top-5 sending nations whose average IQs are above 87. This is a formula for disaster.
For example, in 2010, the top 5 included Mexico, India, Philippines, and Dominican Republic. Its not like we are poaching their nuclear physicists and economists. Why would you expect the average Dominican to come to America en masse and expect the US to continue being American?
“Heiled”, huh?
You do realize that the original eugeneticists very strongly made similar claims about Italians, Jews, Greeks and Slavs?
Beyond that if you’re going to traffic in discredited racist claims that brown people are stupid, why not use the similar beliefs regarding the shortcomings of white men when considering whether having large numbers of non-whites coming into the country is a good thing.
Certainly if white men have extremely small penises and aren’t able to pleasure women to the extent that non-whites can, then for the sake of American women isn’t it a good idea to let large numbers of men who don’t have such…um… shortcomings rather than having to settle for men who don’t measure up.
Certainly we’ve all met women overjoyed they didn’t have to settle for anatomically inferior white men.
Okaaay. I get it now.
There’s one more weight on the scale of the “just because I’m anti-immigrant doesn’t mean I’m racist” scale.
Or would you like to rephrase your comments with reference to Zulus and Hottentots?
Why stop there? Why not deport morons, rather than electing them to Congress?
I refuse to accept that national boundaries are as sacrosanct as personal property and bodily integrity.
And besides, the “they are taking our resources, jobs, etc” argument works equally well against children. They weren’t here, now they are, taking up valuable government resources and eventually jobs. If IQ is the problem, why not institute a nationwide IQ test for citizenship? Should retards not be allowed to vote? Nobody asked me if your kids should be allowed to enter this country, nullify my vote, use my taxes and take jobs that maybe I could use. They’re upsetting the lifeboat!
Either you demand that all new people in the country, immigrants AND children, spend tens of thousands of dollars and decades worth of bureaucracy and tests to become citizens, or else you admit that it isn’t necessary. Otherwise, you’re just being discriminatory and xenophobic. If you’re afraid of increasing the population and job pool, outlaw (or severely restrict) reproduction as well as immigration, or else admit you’re a hypocrite.
So can anybody answer my question about the states? Why do we have open borders between states? What advantages does that setup offer? States have different laws, and even cultures too. I can use their social services, accept a job, “nullify” the natives’ votes, and mail my money out of state also. So what possible benefit do states get out of this? Wouldn’t it be better to protect state integrity by requiring me to pass a test and pay shit tons of money for a long drawn out period of time before allowing me state citizenship? If not, why not?
Is it maybe because protectionism is bad for their economies? That they actually benefit from both free trade AND free migration? And that xenophobia (and maybe, lack of reciprocity) is all that keeps us from extending those same benefits to our international borders?
We made good Americans out of the Irish, we can make good Americans out of anything.
Actually, many of the immigrants coming from India and the Phillippines are their nuclear physicists, economists, doctors, accountants and other skilled professionals. The US economy is based in part on brain draining the third world.
I meant defending in a wider sense rather than a strictly military one.
We’ve never seriously attempted to defend our borders so we can’t really say.
The Republican plan would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. How do we pay for that?