Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

The Wall

View Poll Results: The Wall, for or against?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Go Wall!

    3 27.27%
  • No Wall!

    8 72.73%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 75 of 511
  1. #1
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ

    Default The Wall

    "Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) remain the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States. No other group is currently positioned to challenge them." - Unclassified DEA Drug Threat Assessment, 2016

    Mexican TCOs maintain influence in large parts of Mexico for the cultivation, production, importation, and transportation of illicit drugs. They then control lucrative smuggling corridors across the United States Southwest Border. (SWB). Once across, they are delivered to consumer markets everywhere within the United States.

    Gangs are up according to federal, state, and local law enforcement reports. Law enforcement also have connected local gangs to mexican TCO drug sources of supply.

    What follows is the threat from each major drug:
    -Controlled Prescription (like xanax, oxycodone): the number of deaths attributed to these drugs have outpaced heroin and cocaine combined. ~52 american deaths per day.
    -Heroin: deaths continue to be on the rise. There are large poppy farms in Mexico, creating high-purity and low cost heroin to market into the united states. about 10,000 died in 2014 due to heroin overdoses
    -Fentanyl: This drug is incredibly dangerous to law enforcement, is manufactured in china or mexico, and then smuggled into the united states. Merely touching a few grains of it could cause a fatal overdose. The threat is something law enforcement takes incredibly seriously.
    Meth: Most of US meth is produced in Mexico, and smuggled across the SWB. Seizures of domestic meth labs is down, likely due to the large availability of it coming from Mexican TCOs.
    -Cocaine: on the rise, mostly from colombia.
    -Marijuana: Tons come from Mexico, but its also made domestically.

    Smuggling across the border occurs in a variety of ways. The vast majority occurs over land. The most common way is smuggled within vehicles in hidden compartments. Tunnels are also used, however, and primarily smuggle literal tons of marijuana. As of March, 2016, 225 tunnels were discovered since 1990. 224 of those tunnels were discovered on the SWB, with 185 of them crossing into the US. They are also transported on commercial trains and passenger buses. To a small extent, speedboats off the coast of california are also used On the other hand, traditional methods like using "backpackers" to cross the desert are very common.

    The above information was all ripped directly from the DEA threat assessment of 2016. -https://www.dea.gov/resource-center/2016%20NDTA%20Summary.pdf

    BTW, overdoses are responsible for 49,714 American deaths in 2014. Motor vehicle accidents accounted for 35,398. Not to mention the number of deaths attributed to cartel or gang violence resulting from the drug trade. -http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

    ------------------------------------------------------

    TLDR: Drugs are bad, mkay. This post doesnt even address other threats caused by our open border. Illegals do commit crimes. By definition, they've already committed one. But moreover, its a hard life for people who arent supposed to be here. To solve some of those hard life problems, crimes do occur. Not to mention threats caused by cartel members or gangs. The threat is real.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    Alright, so lets get to the point. Something needs to be done. Wall?

    Pros:
    - Stops backpackers cold (Do i need to address the "ladder" argument?)
    - More men (trump has said this) means more surveillance. The more people we have guarding, the fewer smuggling vehicles will get by us.

    Cons
    - Its a wall, and a blight upon America
    - Its a wall
    - Its expensive.
    - Does it even stop tunnels?

    So, yay or nay? If nay, why? Political reasons (ew, walls are unamerican)? Economic reasons? Or something else?
    Last edited by JKDS; 02-26-2017 at 06:48 PM.
  2. #2
    The drug argument is probably the worst one -don't know if you purposely chose it for that reason. First, how many drugs get walked across as opposed to flown or smuggled or shipped by boat? Second, so the price of drugs goes up a fraction, so what? Third, not all your drugs come from Mexico. I'm sure Trump uses the drug argument solely 'cause it's the most fear-inducing; if he could say terrorists were coming over the border with poison-tipped nukes he would.

    But ok, stopping criminals in general is a good reason. Not clear how many it would stop and if that's worth the cost (now closer to $15-20b so they say). More men guarding the wall also costs more money.

    Don't believe the world would care much if you had a wall or not - it's your country. You already look kinda silly to us with your crazy orange president, sorry to be blunt.
  3. #3
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    The amount of drugs crossing the SWB is incredible. With it comes an immense amount of crime. Meth heads are particularly notorious for their actions. YouTube will provide tons of examples. The drug doesn't only effect our community in creating meth heads though, it also provides funding to gangs and the cartel. Nor only wanna be gangs, but also the famous and incredibly dangerous ones. White supremacists. Nuestra familia. Bloods and crips. Cut their funding, cut their power.

    Will other ways turn up? Sure. But I'd rather show em a locked door than an open window.

    As far as economics, I can't comment. I can't even fathom what 20billion even means in comparison to the US budget.
  4. #4
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    More cons:
    - the wall doesn't stop catapults or drone deliveries (yes, these are real methods)
    -we do have border towns. Idk the logistics for tackling this
    -rugged terrain will make it difficult to build in many areas
  5. #5
    Seems to me that if I were a Mexican, and things weren't going so well for me, I'd be looking to move. And if someone told me that there was a country that could offer me work, and access to social welfare programs, I'd be very interested in going there. And then if you told me that country was peppered with cities where I could have 'sanctuary' from deportation, I'd be packing my bags.

    A wall isn't gonna stop me. I'll get over by catapult if I have to.

    I'm not against the motivations that the administration has for building a wall, I just think it's an ineffective solution.

    If you really want to stop illegal immigration, you need to destroy the underground economy that supports these people. There needs to be horrendous penalties for companies that employ these people. We can't let illegal immigrants have driver's licenses, or get access to free services that most Americans pay for themselves. There needs to be no motivation for an illegal immigrant to come here.

    If we acheive that, there should be no reason for an 'innocent' person to be dashing across a the desert in secret. Once we've fixed things on our side of the border, we can be sure that whoever is out there, is either a smuggler or terrorist. And at that point, we can use drones to simply launch hell-fire missiles at anything that moves. No wall necessary.
  6. #6
    Does really cheap labour not create big pluses for those areas surrounding the border at certain times of year?

    Does the drug trade not basically pay for itself to get through no matter what the barriers are?

    It strikes me as a very ineffective way ($ terms) to solve problems defined by a government some of which aren't even problems.
  7. #7
    I'd also argue the very negative framing of immigration creates a large problem that doesn't and shouldn't be there.
  8. #8
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Seems to me that if I were a Mexican, and things weren't going so well for me, I'd be looking to move. And if someone told me that there was a country that could offer me work, and access to social welfare programs, I'd be very interested in going there. And then if you told me that country was peppered with cities where I could have 'sanctuary' from deportation, I'd be packing my bags.
    Is this only true if you're a Mexican?

    'Cause otherwise... there are a whole slew of countries which meet these criteria in relation to the USA.
    Canada is even just one border crossing away.


    Oh yeah... more of the, "If everyone would just do like I suppose I would do in their shoes..."
  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Does really cheap labour not create big pluses for those areas surrounding the border at certain times of year?
    How would it? If an illegal immigrant works illegally (for cheap), then that [criminal] business experiences increased profits. Where do those profits go? Certainly not to the employees....otherwise it wouldn't be 'cheap labor'. And when the employees are sending large amounts of their money back to Mexico, the jobs don't benefit the economy as much as "legal" workers would.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Does the drug trade not basically pay for itself to get through no matter what the barriers are?
    No security is absolute. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Also, I don't think the drug trade really cares where their money comes from. So the drugs will follow the path of least resistance. If it's cheaper and less risky to smuggle drugs to, say for example, France instead of America, then French folks are gonna be gettin' high.

    America has the disadvantage of proximity. It's not like there is an ocean between Mexico and the US. So it only follows that America's response to border security be a stronger one than, say for example, France. Otherwise, we're just creating that path of least resistance....right into America.

    There's a reason it's so hard to get cocaine in Saudi Arabia.
  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Is this only true if you're a Mexican?
    This is a thread about the proposed Wall along the southern US border. Remind me again, which country is on the other side of that border?

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    'Cause otherwise... there are a whole slew of countries which meet these criteria in relation to the USA.
    Canada is even just one border crossing away.
    None of that 'slew' of countries shares a border with the US on which a wall could be erected, save Canada. If Canada ever turns into a cesspool of drugs, crime, poverty, and hopelessly corrupt government, then we may want to consider a wall along the northern border as well. Until then though, one problem at a time.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Oh yeah... more of the, "If everyone would just do like I suppose I would do in their shoes..."
    I merely posed a hypothetical using common colloquial phrasing. You're being a real dick right now. I wish you would stop.
  11. #11
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'm anti-wall mostly for the total lack of historical precedent for any wall accomplishing its goal.

    Did Great Wall of China keep the Mongols out? Nope. Mongol hordes killed ~90% of all Chinese people.

    Did Berlin wall keep Germany divided? Nope. People were still getting across, and when it came down, there was much rejoicing.

    ***
    The notion that we could post sentries on the wall along the entire US-Mexico border 24/7 is a monumental effort of labor which is not remotely practical.

    ***
    Fixing the laws to decriminalize what is clearly non-destructive (and all-too-common) human behavior is a great first step to solving this problem.

    Is the problem that drugs are coming across the border, or that Americans want drugs that are not available here?
    I.e. is the real problem that drug-users are not willing to vote on drug-related issues for some reason?

    I'd be much more in favor of legal, regulated drugs ... tested and sold by the gov't for high tax rates... and criminalizing the actual thefts and other BS as it comes. I don't see why someone wanting to be inebriated on something besides alcohol is so bad while someone wanting to be inebriated on alcohol is OK.
  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How would it? If an illegal immigrant works illegally (for cheap), then that [criminal] business experiences increased profits. Where do those profits go? Certainly not to the employees....otherwise it wouldn't be 'cheap labor'. And when the employees are sending large amounts of their money back to Mexico, the jobs don't benefit the economy as much as "legal" workers would.
    So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No security is absolute. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Also, I don't think the drug trade really cares where their money comes from. So the drugs will follow the path of least resistance. If it's cheaper and less risky to smuggle drugs to, say for example, France instead of America, then French folks are gonna be gettin' high.

    America has the disadvantage of proximity. It's not like there is an ocean between Mexico and the US. So it only follows that America's response to border security be a stronger one than, say for example, France. Otherwise, we're just creating that path of least resistance....right into America.
    This is so irrelevant to what I said. The point was exactly about $ spent/reward of that. Maybe you healthcare shouldn't be so fucked that people can go across the border and get much cheaper service & prescription drugs at a fraction of the price. Also you realise France is basically part of mainland Europe, it's connected very liberally to most places.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    There's a reason it's so hard to get cocaine in Saudi Arabia.
    Actually knowing people who spend time in these places I can tell you that it isn't. Maybe in the same way if you went to anywhere in the world you might find it hard to get coke with no connections.
  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Is the problem that drugs are coming across the border, or that Americans want drugs that are not available here?
    I.e. is the real problem that drug-users are not willing to vote on drug-related issues for some reason?

    I'd be much more in favor of legal, regulated drugs ... tested and sold by the gov't for high tax rates... and criminalizing the actual thefts and other BS as it comes. I don't see why someone wanting to be inebriated on something besides alcohol is so bad while someone wanting to be inebriated on alcohol is OK.
    Surely you'd agree there is a limit though? Even if we stipulate that your plan works for pot, what about harder drugs?

    the drug business is exploitative. People turn to drugs typically during a weak-moment in their lives, and if they succumb, they often end up addicted for life. The consequences of drug use are so destructive, that I don't think any amount of tax revenue could justify legalizing things like cocaine, heroin, or meth.
  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?
    I definitely did not say that. I'm merely refuting your claim that cheap labor is a boon to border economies. Redistribution doesn't seem like much of a benefit either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Actually knowing people who spend time in these places I can tell you that it isn't. Maybe in the same way if you went to anywhere in the world you might find it hard to get coke with no connections.
    Seriously, just stop. Do you know what the penalty is for drug possession in Saudi Arabia? Are you telling me that it's not a deterrent at all?
  15. #15
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This is a thread about the proposed Wall along the southern US border. Remind me again, which country is on the other side of that border?
    You said, "If I was a Mexican, I would..."
    I asked the question because you are not a Mexican, but those benefits you claim are enticing Mexicans across the border are equally true w.r.t. the US if you cross Canada's border. They have more free public services than the USA, and they have loads of cities where no one is looking for "illegal Americans."

    So my question is:
    If those things you said are actually true, then why haven't you moved to Canada?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This is a thread about the proposed Wall along the southern US border. Remind me again, which country is on the other side of that border?
    I think you missed my point. Do you see what I'm asking, now?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    None of that 'slew' of countries shares a border with the US on which a wall could be erected, save Canada. If Canada ever turns into a cesspool of drugs, crime, poverty, and hopelessly corrupt government, then we may want to consider a wall along the northern border as well. Until then though, one problem at a time..
    No, you got me wrong. I'm not saying that we need a wall on the Canadian border because they are itching to come to America where they can pay out of pocket for their health care.

    I'm asking if those things which you cited as so enticing to Mexicans are equally enticing to you. The increase in benefits and lack of scrutiny over your presence would be ~ equal if not more extreme. After all, your skin is already the same color as most Canadians and you already speak the same language. Blending in with the locals would be easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I merely posed a hypothetical using common colloquial phrasing. You're being a real dick right now. I wish you would stop.
    I've never called you a name or passed my judgement on you.

    If you think the way I understand your deeper motivations is incorrect, then please correct me. I'm only trying to understand you.

    To wit: You said my perspective on you was wrong, and I'm showing you the evidence which motivates my understanding.
  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I definitely did not say that. I'm merely refuting your claim that cheap labor is a boon to border economies. Redistribution doesn't seem like much of a benefit either.
    If it happens it is of benefit to someone. Who is this? If you think mexican workers then just lol why would anyone let this type of thing happen just to benefit some mexicans.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Seriously, just stop. Do you know what the penalty is for drug possession in Saudi Arabia? Are you telling me that it's not a deterrent at all?
    Amongst who? The people that do large quantities of drugs, definitely not because they get away with it. Just as they do in any area. Funnily enough chopping peoples hands off for stealing has long been proven to be ineffective at stopping that exact behaviour.
  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So my question is:
    If those things you said are actually true, then why haven't you moved to Canada?
    Winter is 10 months long, and their strippers are flat out disgusting.

    More seriously, it's because the economic opportunities America affords to someone like me who is equipped to succeed in a capitalist meritocracy. Socialism doesn't suit me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm asking if those things which you cited as so enticing to Mexicans are equally enticing to you. The increase in benefits and lack of scrutiny over your presence would be ~ equal if not more extreme. After all, your skin is already the same color as most Canadians and you already speak the same language. Blending in with the locals would be easier.
    Easier still as I actually hold dual citizenship with Canada. But your premise is wrong. Those enticing things are NOT equally enticing to me. I guess I could have phrased my statement better and said "If I was a poor mexican stuck in a corrupt country with little opportunity...."

    Despite the crime and corruption, Mexico isn't exactly a 3rd world country. They have businesses, and CEO's, and accountants, and lawyers, all of whom are pretty happy right where they are. We're not talking about them. We're talking about people who are so disadvantaged that they are willing to take the risk of illegal immigration. A wall is just another obstacle. It's not a barrier.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-27-2017 at 03:39 PM.
  18. #18
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Surely you'd agree there is a limit though? Even if we stipulate that your plan works for pot, what about harder drugs?
    IDK. I don't think I see a limit... and stop calling me Shirley.


    It's a difficult thing to tackle.
    On the one hand, street drugs are random quality and potentially more dangerous to public health than the base drug. So setting up a system which prevents deaths and tax-payer hospital costs due to drugs being laced with random chemicals would potentially be less costly than criminalizing and incarcerating.

    (It's hard to imagine anything more costly than criminalizing and incarcerating, really. I'd need to see some excellent numbers to sway me on that.)

    On the other hand... I don't like the idea that my tax money is going to let some junky sit in a room getting high. Whether or not that's a choice I'd ever make... I'm not really comfortable with that junky asking me for money, and I'm not really comfortable with the gov't telling me that junkies need their drugs.

    However, nothing about this is comfortable, and the least expensive solution is best. If a slightly less than optimal solution can be found that helps more junkies become ex-junkies, then I think that adds dignity to the society, and I'm more comfortable with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    the drug business is exploitative. People turn to drugs typically during a weak-moment in their lives, and if they succumb, they often end up addicted for life. The consequences of drug use are so destructive, that I don't think any amount of tax revenue could justify legalizing things like cocaine, heroin, or meth.
    It's not always about increasing the good. It's sometimes about decreasing the bad.

    I'm not swayed by the 'exploitative' argument. Casinos are legal in the states. Candy is sold at every gas station. The notion that a business is bad 'cause exploitation is not apt.

    I agree that the consequences of drug use are destructive. What I wonder is whether or not the current policy is doing more harm than good. Criminalizing non-violent, self-destructive behavior seems not good for families.
    The fact is that drugs are ugly. I'm not saying that the gov't policy should in any way glorify drugs. I'm saying that making them clean and legally regulated may help some people. Making other services available to people who are at their wits' end and ready to give up on (at least a corner) of life seems much better than waiting until they're over the edge and punishing them for falling.
  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    If it happens it is of benefit to someone. Who is this? If you think mexican workers then just lol why would anyone let this type of thing happen just to benefit some mexicans.
    That's why there are laws against illegal immigration and hiring illegal workers. It doesn't help America. It only benefits those mexican workers. It's an exploitation. That's why it's wrong. Thats why it needs to be stopped. We have the laws, they just aren't being enforced.

    You're absolutely right! LOL @ America for letting this happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Amongst who? The people that do large quantities of drugs, definitely not because they get away with it. Just as they do in any area. Funnily enough chopping peoples hands off for stealing has long been proven to be ineffective at stopping that exact behaviour.
    We're getting away from my point now. The people doing large quantities of drugs in Saudi Arabia aren't doing cocaine, or heroin. In fact, the biggest drug epidemic is a crude amphetamine that is sort of a precursor to Ritalin.

    Bringing cocaine to Saudi Arabia bears more risk than bringing that same cocaine to America. That means a higher cost to a Mexican cartel. Do you think the cartels really care about expanding their business in the middle east? Or will they send their product to America, on the path of least resistance.

    Therefore, one could conclude, that creating more resistance will lead to less drugs flowing in to the country. If America buttons itself up better, more drugs will go to Brazil, or Argentina, or South Africa, or France, or wherever else it's cheapest and least risky.
  20. #20
    It only benefits mexican workers.

  21. #21
    Also Mexico isn't the only place that creates illegal drugs. I'd agree Mexico trying to get into the saudi drug game would be completely mental because the middle east is great at growing the requisite crops and geography is a thing.
  22. #22
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Let me ask the question another way.

    Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?
  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Let me ask the question another way.

    Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?
    Is it a/the problem? It always boils down to $ return when you're faced with limited money and the cost of this seems retarded when applied to the problem it's meant to solve.
  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Let me ask the question another way.

    Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?
    I thought huge amounts of money were already thrown at that problem in the 70s and 80s (or maybe it was 80s and 90s) and all it did was increase the prices, not lower the demand.
  25. #25
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Let me ask the question another way.

    Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?
    Is this still a question about a wall being asked another way?

    At any rate, an unequivocal, "Yes." is my answer.
  26. #26
    btw, afaik net migration of Mexicans is Mexico>America, so not sure what the wall is meant to accomplish.
  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Is it a/the problem?
    OMFG yes!! There is an ongoing opioid epidemic in the USA right now. It's pretty bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    It always boils down to $ return when you're faced with limited money and the cost of this seems retarded when applied to the problem it's meant to solve.
    That only works if you can put a $ value on human life.
  28. #28
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's why there are laws against illegal immigration and hiring illegal workers. It doesn't help America. It only benefits those mexican workers. It's an exploitation. That's why it's wrong. Thats why it needs to be stopped. We have the laws, they just aren't being enforced.

    You're absolutely right! LOL @ America for letting this happen.
    Surely you see that the American who hires the Mexican is helped by the cheaper labor cost.
  29. #29
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    OMFG yes!! There is an ongoing opioid epidemic in the USA right now.
    This is sad, but true.

    C'mon Florida. Regulate, FFS.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That only works if you can put a $ value on human life.
    It is also sad, but true that at the federal level, this must be done. Insurance agencies have to do this, too.

    It sucks that this must be, but the bare bones is that there is a $ value (to the state) and someone needs to figure it out.
  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That only works if you can put a $ value on human life.
    It is very easy to do this & it happens all the time. Hence the insurance industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    OMFG yes!! There is an ongoing opioid epidemic in the USA right now. It's pretty bad
    From what I've seen (and I admit I may be very wrong here) drugs tend not to be the problem when it comes to "drug problems". The opt out always exists, can't get x then do y instead. etc.
    Last edited by Savy; 02-27-2017 at 04:21 PM.
  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Surely you see that the American who hires the Mexican is helped by the cheaper labor cost.
    You mean the criminal American who hires....

    But it doesn't stop there. I doubt that employer is collecting FICA taxes, and I also doubt that he's remitting the employer-portion of FICA taxes on his gross payroll. He's helped by way of an unfair advantage in the form of lower-costs, and less tax burden.

    That hurts the honest businesses who play by the rules. It also hurts the citizens would benefit from those taxes being collected.

    That's why this stuff is illegal man. C'mon
  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You mean the criminal American who hires....

    But it doesn't stop there. I doubt that employer is collecting FICA taxes, and I also doubt that he's remitting the employer-portion of FICA taxes on his gross payroll. He's helped by way of an unfair advantage in the form of lower-costs, and less tax burden.

    That hurts the honest businesses who play by the rules. It also hurts the citizens would benefit from those taxes being collected.

    That's why this stuff is illegal man. C'mon
    So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?
  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?
    The word "rights" makes it a loaded question. I'm also not seeing how it's relevant to anything I said.

    Rephrase please.
  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It is also sad, but true that at the federal level, this must be done. Insurance agencies have to do this, too.

    It sucks that this must be, but the bare bones is that there is a $ value (to the state) and someone needs to figure it out.
    If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the government can prioritize which societal afflictions it will treat based on the monetary risk/reward. In other words, you would like the government to recognize that it is more expensive to enforce drug laws than it is to treat drug addicts, and act accordingly.

    So....what's the risk/reward....in dollars please....of admitting a Syrian refugee?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-27-2017 at 04:49 PM.
  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?
    Don't play dumb bananananana. It's a clear manifestation of having 'legal' labour that employer's costs would rise.
  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Don't play dumb bananananana. It's a clear manifestation of having 'legal' labour that employer's costs would rise.
    My reply is purposely as obtuse as the answer.
  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Don't play dumb bananananana. It's a clear manifestation of having 'legal' labour that employer's costs would rise.
    I'm not playing dumb, I truly don't understand your point. It's certainly not news that criminal activity, when unpunished, will benefit the criminal perpetrators.
  38. #38
    It's also clear to me that restricting illegal immigrants is bad for business, and that Trump knows that. Maybe it's worth him politically to do that, but seems there is a clear relationship between restricting illegals and restricting cheap labour for business. A part of me thinks that for this reason the wall will never be built. But we shall see.
  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm not playing dumb, I truly don't understand your point. It's certainly not news that criminal activity, when unpunished, will benefit the criminal perpetrators.
    Why is it criminal when it's so optimal?
  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm not playing dumb, I truly don't understand your point. It's certainly not news that criminal activity, when unpunished, will benefit the criminal perpetrators.
    Ok then well I guess you just don't understand the issue well enough then, or maybe you just prefer to focus on one side of it as it's easier to argue that way.

    Illegal immigrants pick the strawberries, sweep the floors, and work other menial jobs for less than minimum wage. If they are no longer available, other people will have to do those jobs - and they will be 'official' workers with rights to a minimum wage and all the other rights legals have. This means a cost to business owners, a cost that will be passed on to consumers. That's of course assuming they can find anyone to do those jobs.
  41. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's also clear to me that restricting illegal immigrants is bad for business, and that Trump knows that. Maybe it's worth him politically to do that, but seems there is a clear relationship between restricting illegals and restricting cheap labour for business. A part of me thinks that for this reason the wall will never be built. But we shall see.
    You can solve both problems. Illegal workers give an unfair advantage to criminal employers, and hurt society as a whole by not paying taxes. You can stop illegal immigration, and still keep labor costs low by implementing a generous guest-worker program.

    We have one, it's just currently being exploited by companies seeking to replace American jobs with cheaper "guest" workers, who somehow remain "guests" in perpetuity.

    Fixing the guest worker program seems like a much more practical solution than turning a blind eye to the problems of illegal labor.
  42. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Illegal immigrants pick the strawberries, sweep the floors, and work other menial jobs for less than minimum wage. If they are no longer available, other people will have to do those jobs - and they will be 'official' workers with rights to a minimum wage and all the other rights legals have. This means a cost to business owners, a cost that will be passed on to consumers. That's of course assuming they can find anyone to do those jobs.
    I reject the argument that American's don't want to do those jobs. Can you prove that?

    There is no such thing as any legit industry in America that is solely supported by illegal labor. Every job you just mentioned does has legal citizens working in them. Their wages are held down because of the illegal labor. Their employers are at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And the lost tax revenue hurts everybody.

    Those costs get passed on to the rest of the economy as well
  43. #43
    Economists have dropped the ball on immigration and trade. Their standard claims are not so much wrong as they are not comprehensive. We're seeing now unaccounted for costs of too much immigration with things like nation disruption, regional productivity disruption, and voter backlash.

    The discipline was once about a coherent description of resource allocation regarding all available information. It has become about rationalizing a favored idea. Sad!
  44. #44
    Illegal aliens and minimum wage are unfair to legal immigrants and American citizens. Many would like to work below minimum wage but can't because they abide by the law will illegal aliens slide under it.
  45. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I reject the argument that American's don't want to do those jobs. Can you prove that?
    Pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people willing to do all those shit jobs illegals are doing, though obviously there's no way to prove it one way or another.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    There is no such thing as any legit industry in America that is solely supported by illegal labor. Every job you just mentioned does has legal citizens working in them. Their wages are held down because of the illegal labor. Their employers are at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And the lost tax revenue hurts everybody.

    Those costs get passed on to the rest of the economy as well
    You make good points but in the end the costs and benefits tend to wash out. There is a benefit to employers, there is a pool of labour that wouldn't otherwise be available, and it's cheap labour. Those benefits get passed on to consumers in lower prices for goods.
  46. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You can solve both problems. Illegal workers give an unfair advantage to criminal employers, and hurt society as a whole by not paying taxes. You can stop illegal immigration, and still keep labor costs low by implementing a generous guest-worker program.

    We have one, it's just currently being exploited by companies seeking to replace American jobs with cheaper "guest" workers, who somehow remain "guests" in perpetuity.

    Fixing the guest worker program seems like a much more practical solution than turning a blind eye to the problems of illegal labor.
    Do you need a wall to do that? Or is it just there to keep drugs and criminals out?
  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people willing to do all those shit jobs illegals are doing
    There's just so many racist angles here. Why is it ok to take our shittiest occupations, staff them with brown people, and pay them a sub-standard wage, just so we can enjoy lower priced luxuries? 150 year ago, that was called slavery. You know America fought a civil war to end this exact practice right?

    Out of curiosity, how would you handle enforce labor laws and workers rights? I read a story last week about a dude from Bangladesh who answered an ad and came over on some kind of work visa to be a cook. He was studying culinary arts in his home country. He was promised a salary and an apartment. When he arrived he was given squalid conditions, a wage far less than what was promised, and his duties were mostly janitorial, with some short-order cooking in a diner. When he complained, his employer threatened to revoke his visa sponsorship and send him home. And that dude was here LEGALLY!

    Now imagine how much leverage an employer would have over an illegal immigrant! If everyone is turning a blind eye to illegal labor....how do you protect these people from exploitation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You make good points but in the end the costs and benefits tend to wash out. There is a benefit to employers, there is a pool of labour that wouldn't otherwise be available, and it's cheap labour. Those benefits get passed on to consumers in lower prices for goods.
    It's really convenient for your argument if they do indeed "wash out", but I haven't seen any accounting to that effect whatsoever. Even if you're right, and it's a wash, then there's no economic downside to doing things the legal way. Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Do you need a wall to do that? Or is it just there to keep drugs and criminals out?
    Terrorist too. But no, you don't need a wall. And I'm not sure how I became the wall spokesperson here. I am on record as being opposed to the wall. I do agree with the motivations for it though, I just think it's an ineffective solution to those problems. Other arguments against the wall, in this thread, seem to be limited to "drugs are fine" and "illegal workers aren't bothering anyone". Both of which I find completely absurd.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-27-2017 at 07:44 PM.
  48. #48
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    How much is 20billion? Is that significant to the us gov?
  49. #49
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    There's just so many racist angles here. Why is it ok to take our shittiest occupations, staff them with brown people, and pay them a sub-standard wage, just so we can enjoy lower priced luxuries?
    It's OK because no one's noticing their skin color, ITT.

    ...
    These could be good points, but I'm not convinced this describes the positions represented here.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    150 year ago, that was called slavery. You know America fought a civil war to end this exact practice right?
    It's not slavery for many reasons. The predominant reasons being that they are there of their own volition, and are not property. Another reason is that they are free to negotiate their wage with their prospective employers, who are also free to negotiate.
  50. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's not slavery for many reasons. The predominant reasons being that they are there of their own volition, and are not property. Another reason is that they are free to negotiate their wage with their prospective employers, who are also free to negotiate.
    A+
  51. #51
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the government can prioritize which societal afflictions it will treat based on the monetary risk/reward. In other words, you would like the government to recognize that it is more expensive to enforce drug laws than it is to treat drug addicts, and act accordingly.

    So....what's the risk/reward....in dollars please....of admitting a Syrian refugee?
    Yes, pretty much. Except I'd like to clarify this much:

    I'm not saying the gov't should recognize anything but the cost per inmate to imprison someone and the number of inmates in American prisons. We're really off the charts for the rate at which we incarcerate our own citizens in the USA. It's another sad, but true fact.

    I'm mostly asking if there is a cheaper way to handle this. I'm asking if we're adult enough to admit that we can't fix this, as it's an ugly part of humanity, and our efforts to deter it by criminalizing it have been expensive in taxes and in the difficulties faces by families of non-violent criminals.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So....what's the risk/reward....in dollars please....of admitting a Syrian refugee?
    Well, I'm certain neither of us knows, and I don't see how this question is relevant.

    I'd guess that the number of terrorists in Syrian refugees is non-0, but also the number of terrorists who leave Syria then don't commit acts of terror is also non-0, and the number who would have done something but were thwarted by law enforcement would also be non-0. So prob a whole ton of innocent people to help for each potential threat, and not all threats will do actual harm... IDK.

    I'd rather help people when they ask for help and punish people when they break laws than to make presumptions about what people will do in the future and discriminate against them.
  52. #52
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Other arguments against the wall, in this thread, seem to be limited to "drugs are fine" and "illegal workers aren't bothering anyone". Both of which I find completely absurd.
    Who said drugs are fine? Please re-read my position if you're referring to my stance on the drug issue.

    If they aren't bothering anyone, then why is anything they're doing illegal?

    Some laws are bad, and need to be changed.

    Any law which criminalized good-willed people who are causing no harm is a bad law.
    I mean immediate physical harm. Like terrorism. Not hypothetical harm like, "They're taking our jobs."

    I mean... if you applied for a job and didn't get the job because an illegal immigrant negotiated a lower wage than you (even if your negotiated wage was the legal minimum), then I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I don't see any evidence that the jobs they're working have a huge drawing power to Americans. Even if they are... I blame minimum wage for altering Americans' freedom to negotiate a lower, competitive wage for those jobs.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 02-27-2017 at 10:14 PM.
  53. #53
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Job theft I always thought to be a weak reason.

    What about the cost of illegal immigrants on healthcare, education, jails, courts, and community services?

    For those who think we should legalize the illegal immigrants, isn't that unfair to the thousands who lawfully wait in line to enter legally? My uncle went through the legal process, it's pretty unfair that others can just unlawfully enter, hide from the law, then be given amnesty.

    But that argument only matters if you support annual limits on legal immigration, a whole nuther can of worms
  54. #54
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Taxes are a big deal too btw. For towns with high populations of illegal immigrants, police, fire, and other public services get stretched thin. If 100% of the people can call 911, but only 75% pay taxes, the lawful members of society end up eating the cost.
  55. #55
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Or...is the argument that illegals dont pay taxes full of baloney?
  56. #56
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'm sure they're paying sales tax. Not sure how much that covers, from the state's perspective.

    I'd heard that they don't take advantage of nearly all public services because A) they don't know what those services are or how to claim them, and B) those services require an ID and social security card to gain benefit from them.

    I know it's my opinion, man, but on healthcare and education, I consider those a right I'm willing to bear the burden for. So whatever the burden on those 2 issues, I'm OK with the cost.

    Jails and courts? Isn't catching criminals their job?
    What?

    I addressed public services.

    25% of the people in the town are illegal immigrants who aren't paying local town tax? They're still paying sales tax (I assume), but the town's tax system doesn't pull money for those public services through sales tax?
    That's a problem, yeah.
    Decriminalization of illegal immigrants aside (not my position), there's changing the tax code to reflect this trend, there's calling in the problem to the federal authorities.
  57. #57
    Surely the reason most of these people are getting hired is that they are fairly fit and healthy and are cracking on with the work. I'm pretty sure they're not getting given time off to go to the doctors. Also correct me if I'm wrong but people actually travel into Mexico for cheap health care (i.e. dental work, perscription drugs) why would Mexicans not do the same?

    There are also lots of people who are legal who don't pay taxes, actually claim a lot from the state & are probably the group that uses public services the most. That is somewhat besides the point but definitely refutes the "fairness" claim.
    Last edited by Savy; 02-28-2017 at 02:47 AM.
  58. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's not slavery for many reasons.
    It's really fucking close. Use the term 'indentured servitude' if you like. In fact, I'm going to coin a phrase. If you employ a housekeeper off the books, for below market wages, you are guilty of a....micro-oppression.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The predominant reasons being that they are there of their own volition, and are not property. Another reason is that they are free to negotiate their wage with their prospective employers, who are also free to negotiate.
    Seriously?? Employer says "work for 5 bucks an hour, or take your ass back to Juarez". End of negotiation.

    They may be there under their own volition, but leaving is another story altogether.

    Take the story I related of the man from Bangladesh. He was here legally. I'm sure it's much worse if you're here illegally and your employer has even more leverage to oppress you. How would you address that?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-28-2017 at 07:24 AM.
  59. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm not saying the gov't should recognize anything but the cost per inmate to imprison someone and the number of inmates in American prisons. We're really off the charts for the rate at which we incarcerate our own citizens in the USA. It's another sad, but true fact.
    ok, but I'm not seeing how that's particularly relevant to the 'drugs over the border' discussion. The amount of folks in prison for drug use/possession is minute. People in prison for drugs are dealers, traffickers, or folks who were arrested for drug possession AND something else like having an illegal handgun. There may be a few exceptions, but the majority of inmates, by far, really do deserve to be there.

    It's not just a monetary issue anyway. Addiction ruins lives, destroys families, and kills people. If its a little more expensive to prevent that rather than tolerate it....I'm ok with the cost.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'd rather help people when they ask for help and punish people when they break laws than to make presumptions about what people will do in the future and discriminate against them.
    I only asked the Syrian question because you were posing it as a simple cost exercise. If border enforcement costs more than the benefits of cheap illegal labor, then don't enforce the border. Is that not your position?

    I'm saying then, what benefit does a Syrian refugee bring to the table? Surely it's more expensive to bring in a refugee than an illegal. The refugee gets 'taken care of' to some degree. Giving them access to education and social programs costs money. What's the cost of simply leaving them out altogether?

    I see your points about the cost/benefit of illegal mexican labor. I totally disagree with your math and conclusion, however, suppose I stipulated for a moment. A Syrian refugee fails your economic test. Yet if I recall, you were against the travel ban when we discussed that a while back. Why are you using different standards for admitting people from different countries?

    Unfortunately, I don't think you can use the 'humanitarian' argument as you've already stated that the government should be taking a callous, insurance-industry-like, approach to attaching $ values to the lives of people.
  60. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Any law which criminalized good-willed people who are causing no harm is a bad law.
    I mean immediate physical harm. Like terrorism. Not hypothetical harm like, "They're taking our jobs."

    I mean... if you applied for a job and didn't get the job because an illegal immigrant negotiated a lower wage than you (even if your negotiated wage was the legal minimum), then I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I don't see any evidence that the jobs they're working have a huge drawing power to Americans. Even if they are... I blame minimum wage for altering Americans' freedom to negotiate a lower, competitive wage for those jobs.
    Well you certainly won't find me supporting the concept of a minimum wage. So on that we agree. However, if one exists, it IS important to respect that law, whether you like it or not. Side note: I predict that over the next half decade most major municipalities and/or states in the US will be voting on various ordinances or referendums to increase minimum wage. Get the fuck out and vote! Side side note: Pay attention to Portland, OR.

    In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.

    I know what you're thinking...."But, Prices!!"

    I reject that argument. It was very recently that the price of gas in the US was double what it is now. We took it on the chin. The world didn't stop spinning. Certainly we can absorb an extra 50 cents/lb for strawberries, or pay an extra $5/night for a hotel room. Seems like a small price to pay for the assurance of a fair labor market.

    Plus, consumers paying higher prices will receive some benefit back. If the illegal jobs are made legal, there will be tax revenue.
  61. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm sure they're paying sales tax. Not sure how much that covers, from the state's perspective..
    What if your state doesn't collect sales or income taxes?
  62. #62
    The Wall is a waste of time and money.

    Legalize drugs in the USA, regulate and tax them.

    Allow a market for drug production and import.

    The cartels will lose market share due to increased competition weakening their revenue stream.

    Drug related violence will decrease in Mexico and USA.

    Money taken from drug tax and saved in reduced services costs can go to other things.

    Better enforcement on companies using illegal labour, improved help for addicts etc etc.

    Repurpose DEA to go after human/sex/animal trafficking harder.
  63. #63
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Surely the reason most of these people are getting hired is that they are fairly fit and healthy and are cracking on with the work. I'm pretty sure they're not getting given time off to go to the doctors. Also correct me if I'm wrong but people actually travel into Mexico for cheap health care (i.e. dental work, perscription drugs) why would Mexicans not do the same?.
    Tons go to hospitals, get treatment, then don't pay. Just because you're fit now, that doesn't mean you won't get sick later.

    Illegal immigrants also can't just hop back and forth between Mexico and the US. They're illegals. To get here at all, they had to take a life threatening trek through the desert.
  64. #64
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    @MMM: about 20% of my paycheck is eaten by the federal and state government. On top of that, I pay sales tax. Illegal immigrants, who get paid under the table, don't get owned by that 20% figure.

    What I mean by public services is that police, courts, jails, firefighters, etc art free. They're paid for via taxes. Their workload is also directly tied to population size, and their funding is tied to tax payers.

    The more illegals who don't contribute, the greater the tax burden is on lawful tax payers.

    The cost of enforcing immigration laws is also directly tied to the ease of getting here.
    Last edited by JKDS; 02-28-2017 at 09:23 AM.
  65. #65
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    @hoppy: Legalize even meth, heroin, and cocaine? That'd certainly impact the cartels, but do we really want more meth heads? People high on, or addicted to, meth are crazy. A huge percentage of crimes, from property crimes to homicides, are caused by meth heads. We might be trading one devil for another here
  66. #66
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/on...rticle/2571730

    87% of households with children, headed by an illegal immigrant, are utilizing welfare programs.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-28-2017 at 10:26 AM.
  67. #67
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's really fucking close. Use the term 'indentured servitude' if you like. In fact, I'm going to coin a phrase. If you employ a housekeeper off the books, for below market wages, you are guilty of a....micro-oppression.


    Seriously?? Employer says "work for 5 bucks an hour, or take your ass back to Juarez". End of negotiation.

    They may be there under their own volition, but leaving is another story altogether.

    Take the story I related of the man from Bangladesh. He was here legally. I'm sure it's much worse if you're here illegally and your employer has even more leverage to oppress you. How would you address that?
    I think you're really angrily agreeing with me, here. You admit there is a negotiation, and that no parties are property.
    The fact that it's a one-sided negotiation has no effect on my point. Both parties are free to set their own value and free to be stubborn about it and free to walk away from the negotiation. Neither has to walk back to Juarez unless they personally want to, just to another business opportunity.

    Poor quality of life is not the same as slavery. "Feeling trapped" is not the same as being property.

    Indentured servitude is not going on either. Indentured servitude would be if the illegal employer gave a loan to the the illegal immigrant, and coerced the immigrant to remain under his employ, no matter the working conditions, until the debt is repaid. Granted, that can be going on, but that is not the premise of the conversation vis-a-vis immigrant labor options.

    The employer in your Bangladeshi story was clearly acting in a criminal manner and I don't think transferring the blame onto the person he was oppressing sounds like justice.
  68. #68
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    @hoppy: Legalize even meth, heroin, and cocaine? That'd certainly impact the cartels, but do we really want more meth heads? People high on, or addicted to, meth are crazy. A huge percentage of crimes, from property crimes to homicides, are caused by meth heads. We might be trading one devil for another here
    Why would there be more meth heads, would you pick up the habit if they were legal? Do you personally know anyone who would? It's not like them being illegal is stopping any of the current users, I'm not convinced everyone and their mom would immediately start using if they became legal. I'd bet experimenting with them would be less tantalizing for kids, since that would remove much of the mystique surrounding them.

    Drugs are expensive because they're illegal, and a big part of the havoc they wreak is due to their legal status. Users are outcast from society, family ties are broken, mere possession can land you in jail. Good luck getting a job as a junkie, so stealing and burglaries become a viable choice, especially when they're probably even penalized less than merely using drugs. Of course many drugs are dangerous and do have seriously fucked up effects on individuals and society, but a lot of these could imo be alleviated by legalization, or even depenalization.

    https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.xTvZb2Xss
    https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_har...ction_is_wrong
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  69. #69
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    ok, but I'm not seeing how that's particularly relevant to the 'drugs over the border' discussion.
    It's relevant because the drugs over the border problem is not a single problem with a single solution.
    IF the only solution is to keep more drugs out and further criminalize drug related activity, then obviously more law enforcement, more prisons, harsher sentences, etc. are in order.
    It's just not that cut and dry.
    We've been trying the criminalization of drug related activities and it's supremely expensive and questionably effective. Drug use hasn't gone down due to the war on drugs. It's a constant. People didn't stop drinking during prohibition, and prohibition didn't make America better by criminalizing alcohol use. I don't see why alcohol is legal, regulated, and heavily taxed, despite the known problems with excessive use, yet other inebriates can't be handled the same way.

    There are a crazy number of deaths due to drunk driving in the USA every year, and we accept that as a cost of freedom. Your position that risk of death is adequate motivation to outlaw something is clearly belied by legal alcohol and legal driving. It's illegal to mix the 2, but either on its own is fine.
    Legalization, regulation, and heavy taxation is a money maker. Criminalization is a money eater.

    To be clear... my position is that this is all ugly and that our current tack is expensive and IF it is working, it's not working much or well. I'm not saying that I endorse drug use, I'm saying that if there is a way that we, as a society, can reduce the cost of this ugly humanity, then I'm in favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The amount of folks in prison for drug use/possession is minute. People in prison for drugs are dealers, traffickers, or folks who were arrested for drug possession AND something else like having an illegal handgun. There may be a few exceptions, but the majority of inmates, by far, really do deserve to be there.
    I hope you'll forgive me if I find your hubris to assert what other people deserve as not compelling evidence to sway my beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's not just a monetary issue anyway. Addiction ruins lives, destroys families, and kills people. If its a little more expensive to prevent that rather than tolerate it....I'm ok with the cost.
    People are free to ruin their lives. This is one of the consequences of freedom.

    I 100% agree with you that I would gladly support more comprehensive addiction prevention and addiction rehabilitation programs.
    I'm in disagreement that incarceration is helping anyone, here.

    I think it's very much like we, as a society, are waiting until someone to go over the edge, then we punish them for falling. If there is a better way, I want it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I only asked the Syrian question because you were posing it as a simple cost exercise. If border enforcement costs more than the benefits of cheap illegal labor, then don't enforce the border. Is that not your position?
    That is not my position.

    My position is that the current laws seem to be criminalizing good-willed people who are not hurting anyone.
    My position is that perhaps rather than doubling down on a bad policy, we re-examine our actual goals, here, and find a way to better achieve them.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm saying then, what benefit does a Syrian refugee bring to the table? Surely it's more expensive to bring in a refugee than an illegal. The refugee gets 'taken care of' to some degree. Giving them access to education and social programs costs money. What's the cost of simply leaving them out altogether?
    What benefit, indeed?
    You don't know. I don't know. This experiment hasn't been performed.
    To go from, "I don't know." to "It must be..." with no steps in between is a hallmark hubris, not data.

    The cost of doing nothing? Prob next to nothing.
    The benefits of helping your neighbor? Hard to predict, but prob. good.
    You'll prob need help someday, and it'll be nice if people see you as someone who helps others at that time. (Yeah, weak argument.)

    Seems pretty rude to have your neighbor come over all beaten and bloody and ask if they can come inside to get away from that mess and for you to just give them a "Nah."

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yet if I recall, you were against the travel ban when we discussed that a while back. Why are you using different standards for admitting people from different countries?
    I did math and drew conclusions on this? Show me. I don't recall doing that.
    In fact, I love math so much that I know I didn't do that. I'd remember it.

    Are you talking about my meandering about non-0 this and that, which I ended the paragraph with IDK.
    Paragraphs that end with IDK are categorically not drawing conclusions.

    IDK how you can assert that a Syrian refugee fails the economic test. If we're talking in the immediate short-term, then yeah, but the long term benefits of helping someone and having earned their gratitude and respect are non-0.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yet if I recall, you were against the travel ban when we discussed that a while back. Why are you using different standards for admitting people from different countries?
    You're not serious are you?
    OMG, you're serious.

    You just invented a position that I never said I hold and think you "got me" because your invented position is in opposition to my prior stated position.

    I'm not using different standards. If you read my actual points, rather than invent some cartoon opposition to your positions, we'd have a more productive conversation.

    To clarify: My position on the travel ban is, "If extreme vetting is necessary for one group of immigrants, then it's necessary for all groups of immigrants." Treating people differently under the law should only happen on an individual, case by case basis where there is evidence of wrong-doing. Anything else is bigotry of some form.

    My position on illegal immigration is, "Are the laws we currently have actually any good?"
    It's not even an assertion, merely a query about whether the current laws are falsely criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't think you can use the 'humanitarian' argument as you've already stated that the government should be taking a callous, insurance-industry-like, approach to attaching $ values to the lives of people.
    Seriously again?
    SMH. It's like you barely read enough of my posts to fill up with emotion over some perceived position that I do not hold, then you type up a flurry of "gotcha" stuff at me over something I never said.

    My position on this is that it is sad but true that the gov't has to do this. That doesn't reduce the humanity of anything, it only acknowledges that at some level, ignoring the harsh realities is folly.

    If you're going to boil all my positions down to the complexity of a teenager, even when I've described the nuance of my understanding and my struggle to find a way to understand the world through more than just my own behavior, as an adult who is, and will always be, under-informed on the issues, then why are you here?

    If you honestly understand my positions and disagree with me, then bring on that conversation.
    As it stands, I feel like I'm talking to a pissed off teenager who is getting some perverse pleasure out of the melodrama of the situation.
  70. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You admit there is a negotiation.....The fact that it's a one-sided negotiation has no effect on my point.
    A one sided negotiation is called an ultimatum. Look, we can split hairs over who has what leverage, but I'd rather not. The point is that the employers here hold enormous amounts of leverage, and the employees almost none. Maybe it's not quite "slavery" in the literal sense, but the relationship is extremely exploitative.

    Employments are typically arranged ahead of time, either through human traffickers having arrangements with employers, or because of an existing relationship with another illegal worker who's already working there. I don't think they are in much of a position to negotiate wages when they arrive. You make it sound like they can just stroll on down the street to the next criminal enterprise and find work, or post their resume on borderjumperjobs.com.
  71. #71
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.
    I don't see whether this is a positive or a negative and for whom.
    So long as all parties are free to negotiate their wage, then there is no problem, only some people getting all butthurt because the way they want the world to be is not the way the world is. I would love to make double or triple my current wage. If I try to demand that, then someone else will come along and offer to do my job for much close to my current wage and I'm cut out. That's the nature of negotiation.

    Here, "legal worker" is free to lower his asking price or to admit that he can't live off of such a low wage and to seek employment elsewhere. "Legal worker" may find that he's being under-bid across the board. That's indicative of a disconnect between his perceived value and others perceived value of his abilities.

    Ultimately this is the nature of supply and demand, and I don't see what/whom you're saying is at fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I know what you're thinking....


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    "But, Prices!!"
    Nope. Not what I was thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I reject that argument. It was very recently that the price of gas in the US was double what it is now. We took it on the chin. The world didn't stop spinning. Certainly we can absorb an extra 50 cents/lb for strawberries, or pay an extra $5/night for a hotel room. Seems like a small price to pay for the assurance of a fair labor market.

    Plus, consumers paying higher prices will receive some benefit back. If the illegal jobs are made legal, there will be tax revenue.
    Dude. I think you successfully refuted the point no one was making aside from some imaginary opposition in your head.
    Congratulations! You've outsmarted yourself.


    We took it on the chin?
    Do you remember the outrage and public outcry over the increased fuel prices. People were losing their minds.

    I'm all in favor of a fair labor market, but adhering to the current laws like they're some Bible is not compelling me to see the status quo as fair.
  72. #72
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What if your state doesn't collect sales or income taxes?
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    That's a problem, yeah.
    .
  73. #73
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    @MMM: about 20% of my paycheck is eaten by the federal and state government. On top of that, I pay sales tax. Illegal immigrants, who get paid under the table, don't get owned by that 20% figure.

    What I mean by public services is that police, courts, jails, firefighters, etc art free. They're paid for via taxes. Their workload is also directly tied to population size, and their funding is tied to tax payers.

    The more illegals who don't contribute, the greater the tax burden is on lawful tax payers.

    The cost of enforcing immigration laws is also directly tied to the ease of getting here.
    I'm in full agreement that there's a problem, here.

    As I understand it, that 20% is significant, and while illegal immigrants have access to some services, they do not have access to most services.

    Unless you're willing to inject data, here, we can only cite that they pay some taxes, but not all taxes, and that they have access to some public services, but not all.
    Whether or not this amounts to a net gain or net loss to the state has not been demonstrated.
  74. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    There are a crazy number of deaths due to drunk driving in the USA every year, and we accept that as a cost of freedom. Your position that risk of death is adequate motivation to outlaw something is clearly belied by legal alcohol and legal driving. It's illegal to mix the 2, but either on its own is fine.
    You can't equate dangerous drugs to alcohol. You can have a drink or two, and not be impaired. You can't just get a buzz on heroin. Also, the destructive effects of alcohol are only experienced by a minority of users, and only after prolonged frequent use. In other words, not every drinker is an alcoholic. No single drink will destroy your liver.

    Heroin and cocaine are significantly more addictive, often after just one use. Impairment is immediate, and extreme. Overdose is a risk virtually every single time you use. There's no such thing as a 'social heroin user', or a 'casual meth head'.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Legalization, regulation, and heavy taxation is a money maker. Criminalization is a money eater.
    Do you not agree that heroin, cocaine, and meth have much more intense, immediate, and destructive effects than alcohol? how are you going to police irresponsible use like we do with alcohol? Police patrol roadways and are trained to look for signs of impaired driving. I don't know how many DUI arrests there are on any given day in America, but I'll bet it's alot.

    Wouldn't you expect that to increase if you permit more inebriates to the market? And because of the higher intensity of addiction, you're likely to have more repeat offenders. The addiction will surely be stronger than the deterrent until you reach a point where you physically have to lock these people up. Then we're right back to your original complaint that it costs too much to enforce drug laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I hope you'll forgive me if I find your hubris to assert what other people deserve as not compelling evidence to sway my beliefs.
    Well it's not what *I* think they deserve, its' what a judge, jury, and an advanced system of justice thinks they deserve.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm in disagreement that incarceration is helping anyone, here..

    I think it's very much like we, as a society, are waiting until someone to go over the edge, then we punish them for falling. If there is a better way, I want it.
    I believe you're significantly over-stating the cost of incarceration for drug offenses. The number of inmates within the federal prison system, whose worst offense is drug possession, is less than 250. In a country of 320 million!

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    My position is that the current laws seem to be criminalizing good-willed people who are not hurting anyone.
    They are hurting someone. They are taking a job that could otherwise be staffed by an american. They are participating in an illegal labor market that depresses wages for legal workers. They are shirking their taxpaying responsibilities. And they are burdening our social programs (87% of them are on welfare).

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    IDK how you can assert that a Syrian refugee fails the economic test. If we're talking in the immediate short-term, then yeah, but the long term benefits of helping someone and having earned their gratitude and respect are non-0.
    Is it really respect? Did we earn Cuba's respect by taking in their refugees in the early 80's? Or did they snicker behind our backs at how they were able to unload a burden of undesirables onto another country? Is Mexico respecting us by publishing pamphlets that teach people how to exist in the United States undetected?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/wo...n-us.html?_r=0

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    To clarify: My position on the travel ban is, "If extreme vetting is necessary for one group of immigrants, then it's necessary for all groups of immigrants."
    Different topic now, but you're ignoring the fact that some immigrants come from countries with friendly/centralized governments who are willing to provide vetting information. No extreme measures necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Treating people differently under the law should only happen on an individual, case by case basis where there is evidence of wrong-doing. Anything else is bigotry of some form.
    Your position is a form of xenophobia.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    My position on illegal immigration is, "Are the laws we currently have actually any good?"
    If they aren't, which you seem to believe, what would you do instead? A wall?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-28-2017 at 02:30 PM.
  75. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I don't see whether this is a positive or a negative and for whom.
    It's a negative. For the whole economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I would love to make double or triple my current wage. If I try to demand that, then someone else will come along and offer to do my job for much close to my current wage and I'm cut out. That's the nature of negotiation.
    Ok, now let's suppose you aren't demanding double or triple your wage. Let's say you're happy with the current 'market rate' for your position and experience. Now let's say someone else comes along and offers to do your job for 2/3 of your salary and you get cut out.

    Then you hit the job market and find that the guy who took your job isn't alone. There are 11,999,999 just like him out there all willing to do your job for 2/3 of your salary. And they are willing to accept that lower wage because their own criminal behavior makes them more desperate for work. Now the whole market is dragged down and you can't find work unless you also accept 2/3 of your original salary.

    Where in that scenario did you do any negotiating? Seems to me like you got fucked over.

    In real life, the effect isn't that obvious. It happens slowly, over time. But illegal workers willing to accept a lower wage most definitely depresses wages for all workers. That's....wicked bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Ultimately this is the nature of supply and demand, and I don't see what/whom you're saying is at fault.
    If there is an illegal manipulation of supply that affects demand for everyone, thus depressing the price of labor; then the fault lies with the illegal manipulators of supply. Namely, that would be the people hiring illegal workers.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Do you remember the outrage and public outcry over the increased fuel prices. People were losing their minds.
    People lose their minds about something different every week.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-28-2017 at 02:32 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •