The Long Road to Residency

[Lao Tse]

bam.

Im fucking untouchable.

 

[Timshel]

Yes. The laws of the united states should be constructed to improve the lives of citizens first. Protecting the labor market from massive glut is a long standing traditional reason for immigration quotas. And it's valid. Your conception as the state as merely a facilitator of corporate short term profit is flawed, fascist and flawed.

lol

I don't give a crap about corporations. I am not sure they should even be able to exist in their current form. But, the status quo, where capital is free to move and labor is not gives an advantage to capital, i.e., corporations.

I realize you don't want capital to move either, but you are an idiot and Fortress America will not work. Societal benefits are maximized through free trade.

 

[Lao Tse]

lol

I don't give a crap about corporations. I am not sure they should even be able to exist in their current form. But, the status quo, where capital is free to move and labor is not gives an advantage to capital, i.e., corporations.

I realize you don't want capital to move either, but you are an idiot and Fortress America will not work. Societal benefits are maximized through free trade.

The status quo is labor is able to move. hello. all the illegals doing the jobs "americans won't do"? They ARE MOVING AND IT"S DRIVING WAGES DOWN.

Fortress America made us the greatest on earth. destroying the middle class and globalization zealotry has brought us where we are now. in the shitter.

Learn to understand reality, facts, and meaningful trends.

 

[DamnYankee]

It's nothing but a straw man. ...

The only thing one gains from the comment is that Savage seems to believe language and culture should be under the control and protection of the government. That's obviously what SM wants. It's nothing more than advocacy totalitarianism where state and society/culture are one.

Amazing irony, Dick.

 

[Lao Tse]

I don't. I believe labor and capital should be on equal footing. Both should be free to cross borders, with minimal burdens.

No. Immigration should be according the immigration policy of the sovereign state.

Again, our nation was not founded by national socialist.

Enforcing immigration law is not socialism.

It was setup based on libertarian/liberal principles, including freedom of movement.

Freedom of movement WITHIN THE COUNTRY maybe. An intact border protected from invasion is the very definition of a state.

It's founding documents make clear that the protection of individual rights is the purpose of government and not to protect one group of buyers/sellers on the market at the expense of another.

And citizens are the individuals worthy of the traditional labor market protections of borders.

Barriers to trade an immigration are the same. Both attempt to protect one specific group of domestic suppliers at the expense of all consumers of the product/service supplied. The harm to consumers is greater than the benefit of the special interest group seeking protection.

Yes. They are to protect citizens. Rightfully so. Citizens are not a special interest group, douche.

 

[Liberty]

Welfare is just a red herring here. It's ridiculous to think these people are coming here for welfare and there is no proof they make use of welfare more than others. Any negative in government revenue - expenditure associated with immigrants is likely less than the amount we spend trying to stop them and/or ensuring they have jumped through the hoops properly.

My wife works for an immagration attorney. She works with Mexican Americans (who are her friends) and has she got some story's to tell. We Americans are paying through the nose.

I just strongly disagree.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL! Well, in our 18 years together, my American husband has never quite remembered the exact date of my birthday (he thinks it's the day after). When the officer asked him our anniversary date, I just started to laugh. He replied with the same number. I laughed again and said "quick, when's my birthday!" It was clear that we were a well established couple and the officer understood that. We passed with flying colors (being professionals didn't hurt, I'm sure).

The couple who had preceded us didn't fare so well, and judging from the woman's behavior that was probably justified. In the waiting room she all snuggled up and constantly touched his arm, his face, etc., made a big show. When they left she seemed not to know him at all. It was clear that it wasn't just a reaction to an argument.

Yea I think we made that clear to our interviewer too. I had asked my wife to bring an important document. My wife has a tendency to get so obsessed with detail that she forgets the big things. That's what she did here. She got so obsessed with collecting all the supporting documents of or relationship that she forgot to bring the copy of our marriage license. When asked for it she started to panic, kept shuffling through the papers she brought (she was tasked with organising the papers as I had to work that day). I went from pale, to red to purple in the face and steam started blowing out of my ears and nose as I hissed "You forgot our marriage license?!!" and my wife just about started crying when just then I realized I had a wallet sized version of our marriage license in my wallet. I think the reaction between us on that convinced the interviewer that we were a real couple! LOL

 

[Timshel]

No. Immigration should be according the immigration policy of the sovereign state.

Enforcing immigration law is not socialism.

Freedom of movement WITHIN THE COUNTRY maybe. An intact border protected from invasion is the very definition of a state.

And citizens are the individuals worthy of the traditional labor market protections of borders.

Yes. They are to protect citizens. Rightfully so. Citizens are not a special interest group, douche.

All barriers to trade protect a few citizens at an expense to all consumers. For instance, a barrier to imports of steel benefit the steel industry and those employed within it domestically. But, it comes at the expense of all consumers of steel who will have to pay the arbitrarily inflated prices.

 

[Lao Tse]

All barriers to trade protect a few citizens at an expense to all consumers. For instance, a barrier to imports of steel benefit the steel industry and those employed within it domestically. But, it comes at the expense of all consumers of steel who will have to pay the arbitrarily inflated prices.

They protect all citizens to and expense to all citizens.

Long term, it's wise to keep wealth in the nation by keeping as many americans as possible in our own supply chain.

Trade deficits suck wealth from the nation overtime.

im sorry corporations would like to destroy the borders so they can cheaper labor for short term profits, but long term, its unwise and drives wages lower. No matter how cheap things get, they're still to expensive when your job is sent overseas.

 

[Minister of Truth]

We should deport Asshate, just for the hell of it.

 

[Timshel]

They protect all citizens to and expense to all citizens.

Long term, it's wise to keep wealth in the nation by keeping as many americans as possible in our own supply chain.

Trade deficits suck wealth from the nation overtime.

im sorry corporations would like to destroy the borders so they can cheaper labor for short term profits, but long term, its unwise and drives wages lower. No matter how cheap things get, they're still to expensive when your job is sent overseas.

It does not protect all citizens. That is retarded. Barriers to steel imports would only protect the few people that work or have capital in that industry. It enables domestic steel to continue unproductive efforts at the expense of all consumers of steel. It is destructive to wealth and a waste of resources. Such policies can not enrich us.

Allowing labor to move in search of higher wages, without chasing them into a black market, will ensure the best return for labor as it does with capital.

Your ways have been tried and they have failed. You just want to protect the incompetents, like yourself, who will be left behind by the new era of the highly mobile workforce. Travel is no longer very expensive and technology has made much travel unnecessary. In the skilled trades foreigners can and will compete without even needing to enter the US. Barriers to physical passage over borders can not protect us from the need for skills. We are not going back to the dark ages in search of what never was. You can either keep up or get trampled, but there is no barring the door.

The truth is the American worker will do just fine in this environment, because we are highly educated, skilled and generally kick ass.

 

[Lao Tse]

It does not protect all citizens. That is retarded. Barriers to steel imports would only protect the few people that work or have capital in that industry. It enables domestic steel to continue unproductive efforts at the expense of all consumers of steel. It is destructive to wealth and a waste of resources. Such policies can not enrich us.

Allowing labor to move in search of higher wages, without chasing them into a black market, will ensure the best return for labor as it does with capital.

Your ways have been tried and they have failed. You just want to protect the incompetents, like yourself, who will be left behind by the new era of the highly mobile workforce. Travel is no longer very expensive and technology has made much travel unnecessary. In the skilled trades foreigners can and will compete without even needing to enter the US. Barriers to physical passage over borders can not protect us from the need for skills. We are not going back to the dark ages in search of what never was. You can either keep up or get trampled, but there is no barring the door.

The truth is the American worker will do just fine in this environment, because we are highly educated, skilled and generally kick ass.

And tariffs on other products will protect other workers in other industries.

Of course only citizens working in that specific industry will be protected when a tariff is placed on that sector. That's not an argument that it is bad. Employing americans is good. Keeping the salaries in the local economy is good. And there is an instrinsic value of having the capacity to create diverse products, in time of war, or when trade is disrupted for any reason. Independance is intrinsically valuable. Dependancy is a cost you may not be able to measure in dollars neither.

 

[Cypress]

Borders language culture. Toss them out and we no longer have a country.

Is that what Michael Savage and Glenn Beck say about hispanic immigrants?

I've never met a second generation mexican, el salvadoran, or chinese who didn't speak english.

The speculations, guesswork, and non-empirical conjectures of you and Glenn Beck aside, there's actually been peer-reviewed research done on this with actual data and academic analysis.

Citrin et al. (2007), in the Journal of the American Political Science Association, vol 5(1)

"...data from the U.S. Census and national and Los Angeles opinion surveys, we show that Hispanics acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly beginning with the second generation, and appear to be no more or less religious or committed to the work ethic than native-born whites. Moreover, a clear majority of Hispanics reject a purely ethnic identification and patriotism grows from one generation to the next. At present, a traditional pattern of political assimilation appears to prevail."

https://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PerspectivesMar07Citrin_etal.pdf

 

[Timshel]

And tariffs on other products will protect other workers in other industries.

At a greater cost to consumers of those goods. Again, the added cost to consumers is greater than the benefit to the protected industry due to the protection of inefficient production methods. Then add in the cost of keeping out foreign goods and the only ones that can benefit from such lunacy are bureaurats.

 

[Timshel]

Is that what Michael Savage and Glenn Beck say about hispanic immigrants?

I've never met a second generation mexican, el salvadoran, or chinese who didn't speak english.

The speculations, guesswork, and non-empirical conjectures of you and Glenn Beck aside, there's actually been peer-reviewed research done on this with actual data and academic analysis.

Yeah, it's funny. I have Mexican friends with southern accents stronger than mine. I saw one of those windshield banners in Ruskin that captured it...
Red Nexicans.

 

[Lao Tse]

At a greater cost to consumers of those goods.

But that's ok, because everyone's job is protected from outsourcing so they can afford to not have products made by overseas IMF slaves.

Again, the added cost to consumers is greater than the benefit to the protected industry due to the protection of inefficient production methods. Then add in the cost of keeping out foreign goods and the only ones that can benefit from such lunacy are bureaurats.

It's not inefficient production methods that are causing the outsourcing now, it's just greed, and a desire to hasten the destruction of the middle class with a globalism zealotry powered race to the bottom.

Choke on that, duncecap.

 

[Timshel]

It's not inefficient production methods that are causing the outsourcing now, it's just greed, and a desire to hasten the destruction of the middle class with a globalism zealotry powered race to the bottom.

Anytime you create a barrier to competition you allow for greater inefficiency. The domestic industry has less need to adopt better production methods (many of which require large capital expenditures) or serve the desires of consumers if they are protected from competition.

Some industries require large economies of scale and so there would only be enough room for a few without free trade. That increases the possibility of abuse of monopoly status.

The American auto industries failure to meet demand for smaller vehicles is a good example of all this and if greater barriers had been in place they may have continued to ignore the demand entirely.

Again, you also have the cost associated with keeping out foreign goods. That adds value to no one, except those in unproductive fields, i.e., the bureaurats that will enforce the law and the criminals who will circumvent it.

Your idiocy will not work and is not relevant to any discussion of these issues because everyone outside your skinhead community, knows it won't work. Nobody is buying what you are selling.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Just where the fuck do you think "the blessings of liberty" come from, you stupid child.

LOL, so weak. I know it's difficult talking to someone so immensely above your intellect, SM. You aren't a human anyway, so what does it matter?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Anytime you create a barrier to competition you allow for greater inefficiency. The domestic industry has less need to adopt better production methods (many of which require large capital expenditures) or serve the desires of consumers if they are protected from competition.

Some industries require large economies of scale and so there would only be enough room for a few without free trade. That increases the possibility of abuse of monopoly status.

The American auto industries failure to meet demand for smaller vehicles is a good example of all this and if greater barriers had been in place they may have continued to ignore the demand entirely.

Again, you also have the cost associated with keeping out foreign goods. That adds value to no one, except those in unproductive fields, i.e., the bureaurats that will enforce the law and the criminals who will circumvent it.

Your idiocy will not work and is not relevant to any discussion of these issues because everyone outside your skinhead community, knows it won't work. Nobody is buying what you are selling.

I think that a retaliatory trade policy that took into account the practices of the countries we're dealing with would produce all-around lower trade barriers in the long run. If we just abolish all trade protections, no matter what the other countries do, they'll just engage in policies designed to exploit that, and we'll have no bones to encourage them to lower their own trade protections.

 

[Socrtease]

All barriers to trade protect a few citizens at an expense to all consumers. For instance, a barrier to imports of steel benefit the steel industry and those employed within it domestically. But, it comes at the expense of all consumers of steel who will have to pay the arbitrarily inflated prices.

One question. Why is the consumer more important than capital or labor? Allowing labor from anywhere that will work for any wage is not always beneficial to the consumer anyhow. Studies in the late 80's and early 90's showed that cars made in factories in Mexico for a lower hourly rate were sold at prices as if they had been constructed by UAW labor, passing the profits on to the stock holders. The consumers benefited not a wit, and US wages were hurt.