Why Do Liberals Get Angry When...

[EverCurious]

It has been estimated that 50% of illegals pay income and payroll tax.

You have a source for that?

Also, if that's the case, then why do they refuse to become citizens, and/or how do we know they're paying if there's no records?

 

[Ravi]

It has been estimated that 50% of illegals pay income and payroll tax.

You have a source for that?

Also, if that's the case, then why do they refuse to become citizens, and/or how do we know they're paying if there's no records?

I will look later when I'm on my computer. Where do you get the idea that they refuse To become citizens? The reality is that we won't let them.

 

[EverCurious]

It's been proven that 100% of all of us pay sales taxes on purchases in municipalities that have sales taxes and the items purchased are taxable. Either way the notion that illegals do not pay taxes is simply not true.

I suppose I can agree, I mean if there's a sales tax, they're paying into that, but again, that's a rate of what? 4% maybe? (I actually don't know, no sales tax here so I'm guessing) vs the 25-30% that citizen's /must/ pay automatically in addition to the what-ever 4% sales tax.

 

[Correll]

If we look into the constitution as originally written, it doesn't give congress the right or power to neither ban nor allow immigration, rather it puts that power in the states themselves. On the other hand the Chinese anit-imigration act or 1887 (*I believe) did so. So do we repeal the above and put the power in the states, or do we say Congress /can/ allow/disallow it and leave it up to a vote? ~ I personally would like to see it put to the states because after all they know their financial and economical situation far better than the fat cats in DC, but we might have to have some kind of "free passage" through anti-immigration states if some land locked states who would welcome them.

I think folks completely misunderstand the big issue that the majority of us have with illegal aliens is that they do not pay taxes, yet they are using the same resources as everyone else. If they were not just coming up here for free shit, it wouldn't be such an issue for most folks. This isn't the 1880's when racism was the main reason for excluding migration (as was the case in the anti-immigration act) It's about the economy and American's, not /against/ any foreigners. That changes the "compassion" situation. No one wants these refugees living in third worlds, but at the same time, part of being an American is receiving the benefits of citizenship, it means that you are contributing to the betterment of your nation, and more so in my mind, what kind of person moves to a new country and doesn't help support said country? These are not people I particularly /want/ in my country, which is why I'm kind of on the anti-immigration side of things. I don't think we should ban all immigration, but we need to ensure that these folks are becoming part of the country, not just ya know freeloading off our generosity.

Good post.

I am all for building a wall across both the northern and southern borders. In this day and age, you can make a bomb in your area and drive it into my area. While it's true you could still do that with border checkpoints, at least we have a chance to interdict the device. So I say build walls. But I hope everyone understands that as long as there has been walls, there have been ways to get around them. It will not end illegal immigration. You say you think folks miss the big issue...I think Trump supporters miss the big issue. It's bewildering that so many are being lead to believe that if you build this wall, that will stop anything. It will stop nothing; only limit the payload. Think of the wall as one of those turnstiles they used to have where you could walk into or out of a store but not take the shopping cart with you.

As for illegals not paying taxes; flat out wrong. Sales taxes are what fund the local economies. Illegals as well as legal immigrants shop at places just like the rest of us and pay their taxes--just like we all do. Federal taxes...that is another matter.

As for the rest of your post...you're right. This is why I say build the wall and simply declare those who are here who haven't been arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes as citizens. Bring them into the structures of taxation, commerce, etc... and let them start earning dollars (and being taxed on those earnings) legally. As for the supposed "line" they are supposed to get at the end of...sorry.

No one is saying that building a wall will be the end of the problem.

It is a needed step towards solving the problem.

No one? I'd check again or I would expect the candidate to express that--if we are going to hold all candidates to the same standard.

They have to express that they know that a wall is not a magical fix it all?

THat's not reasonable.

 

[EverCurious]

It has been estimated that 50% of illegals pay income and payroll tax.

You have a source for that?

Also, if that's the case, then why do they refuse to become citizens, and/or how do we know they're paying if there's no records?

I will look later when I'm on my computer. Where do you get the idea that they refuse To become citizens? The reality is that we won't let them.

That's the first I've heard of that... link me a source on us refusing to take legal's and you might just change my opinion on illegals heh

 

[Correll]

This is awesome beyond words. I knew nutters wouldn't be talking about the economy during this cycle.....given the fact that we are in a period of recovery. But.....who knew that the leading GOP presidential candidates would be talking about anchor babies and birthright citizenship in a world where losing the Hispanic vote is untenable.

If any of your nutter fears were true.......I'd be right there with you.....but you've all been duped and your fears exploited.

Says the clown.

What's the matter, dummy? Speechless?

No, just pointing out that you are a clown and nothing you say has value.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is awesome beyond words. I knew nutters wouldn't be talking about the economy during this cycle.....given the fact that we are in a period of recovery. But.....who knew that the leading GOP presidential candidates would be talking about anchor babies and birthright citizenship in a world where losing the Hispanic vote is untenable.

If any of your nutter fears were true.......I'd be right there with you.....but you've all been duped and your fears exploited.

Says the clown.

What's the matter, dummy? Speechless?

No, just pointing out that you are a clown and nothing you say has value.

Is that right? No value at all? None?

 

[Boss]

No offense but your interpretation very much seems to be the narrow-minded focus of political agenda bias.

Constitutional historian's debate:

The Preamble to the Constitution states that the document’s purpose is to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Some opponents of immigration claim that the inclusion of the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” suggests that the Constitution was only meant to benefit present US citizens and their descendants, thereby justifying the US government in ignoring the rights and welfare of potential migrants in making decisions on immigration policy. However, the term “posterity,” as used in the Preamble, is probably metaphorical rather than literal – denoting future residents of the United States in general rather than merely just those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants. In the 18th century, as today, the word “posterity” was often used to denote “future generations” in general rather than merely the biological descendants of a particular group of people. In 1787, and for almost a century thereafter, the US had a virtual open borders policy, and the Framers of the Constitution had no intention of changing that. They knew that millions of immigrants would be among the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble.

Even if we assume that the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble really does refer only to those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants, it does not follow that that the Constitution justifies ignoring the effects of immigration restrictions on would-be immigrants. As the Founding Fathers well knew, there are moral limits on what governments are allowed to do in pursuit of the interests of their citizens. For example, the United States has no right to invade Mexico and enslave its people – even if doing so would enhance “the general welfare” of Americans. Similarly, there are moral constraints on the extent to which the US government is justified in forcibly consigning would-be immigrants to lives of poverty and oppression in Third World countries. Neither the Preamble nor any other part of the Constitution states that the US government is entitled to ignore moral constraints on the means it uses to achieve the goals of the Constitution.

A closely related restrictionist argument is the claim that aliens are not entitled to the various constitutional rights enumerated in the Constitution. In reality, most of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are extended to all persons who enter areas governed by the United States, whether citizens or not. As James Madison put it at the Virginia ratifying convention for the Constitution, “t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection.” In the few cases where the Constitution really does protect only citizens, the term “citizens” is explicitly used, as in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2. Such explicit references to citizens would be unnecessary if there was an implicit understanding that all constitutional rights are limited to citizens alone.

-----

As a note, again, I'm not against immigration as I think it's good for the country, but am I not exactly for a wall or w/e either. I'm for the individual states making the immigration decision for themselves; if they feel it would harm their economy then they can disallow, if they think it would help them then allow. That said, no matter where, I do take issue to illegal aliens because they're not paying in, still, if a state wants to allow illegals, that's their bag I guess.

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

 

[midcan5]

Why do wingnuts need to speak for liberals? Or whomever it is they assume are liberals? Do right wing conservatives ever think a thought that exists in that space within their ears without having to apply it to another? It must be they cannot think on their own.

For most Americans the idea that one's ancestor's children are not automatically citizens is an absurdity. My mother's parents came from Germany, so then my mom who actually spoke German as a child was not a citizen? Guess her work at the Philly Naval yard during WWII was the work of an alien person. The people who want to change the 14th are the same fools that loved 'separate but equal' and many other discriminatory rules and laws of a less civilized society. Civilization often teeters on the brink of destruction as tribalism rears its ugly head. Grow up people the clown car has you occupied while the important issues remain in their control.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

 

[Correll]

This is awesome beyond words. I knew nutters wouldn't be talking about the economy during this cycle.....given the fact that we are in a period of recovery. But.....who knew that the leading GOP presidential candidates would be talking about anchor babies and birthright citizenship in a world where losing the Hispanic vote is untenable.

If any of your nutter fears were true.......I'd be right there with you.....but you've all been duped and your fears exploited.

Says the clown.

What's the matter, dummy? Speechless?

No, just pointing out that you are a clown and nothing you say has value.

Is that right? No value at all? None?

This is awesome beyond words. I knew nutters wouldn't be talking about the economy during this cycle.....given the fact that we are in a period of recovery. But.....who knew that the leading GOP presidential candidates would be talking about anchor babies and birthright citizenship in a world where losing the Hispanic vote is untenable.

If any of your nutter fears were true.......I'd be right there with you.....but you've all been duped and your fears exploited.

Says the clown.

What's the matter, dummy? Speechless?

No, just pointing out that you are a clown and nothing you say has value.

Is that right? No value at all? None?

You've demonstrated that by you refusal to defend what you say.

When seriously challenged you revert to clown mode, and respond with nothing but dishonestly, logical fallacies and personal attacks.

If you do not value the crap you post, why should anyone else?

 

[Correll]

No offense but your interpretation very much seems to be the narrow-minded focus of political agenda bias.

Constitutional historian's debate:

The Preamble to the Constitution states that the document’s purpose is to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Some opponents of immigration claim that the inclusion of the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” suggests that the Constitution was only meant to benefit present US citizens and their descendants, thereby justifying the US government in ignoring the rights and welfare of potential migrants in making decisions on immigration policy. However, the term “posterity,” as used in the Preamble, is probably metaphorical rather than literal – denoting future residents of the United States in general rather than merely just those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants. In the 18th century, as today, the word “posterity” was often used to denote “future generations” in general rather than merely the biological descendants of a particular group of people. In 1787, and for almost a century thereafter, the US had a virtual open borders policy, and the Framers of the Constitution had no intention of changing that. They knew that millions of immigrants would be among the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble.

Even if we assume that the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble really does refer only to those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants, it does not follow that that the Constitution justifies ignoring the effects of immigration restrictions on would-be immigrants. As the Founding Fathers well knew, there are moral limits on what governments are allowed to do in pursuit of the interests of their citizens. For example, the United States has no right to invade Mexico and enslave its people – even if doing so would enhance “the general welfare” of Americans. Similarly, there are moral constraints on the extent to which the US government is justified in forcibly consigning would-be immigrants to lives of poverty and oppression in Third World countries. Neither the Preamble nor any other part of the Constitution states that the US government is entitled to ignore moral constraints on the means it uses to achieve the goals of the Constitution.

A closely related restrictionist argument is the claim that aliens are not entitled to the various constitutional rights enumerated in the Constitution. In reality, most of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are extended to all persons who enter areas governed by the United States, whether citizens or not. As James Madison put it at the Virginia ratifying convention for the Constitution, “t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection.” In the few cases where the Constitution really does protect only citizens, the term “citizens” is explicitly used, as in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2. Such explicit references to citizens would be unnecessary if there was an implicit understanding that all constitutional rights are limited to citizens alone.

-----

As a note, again, I'm not against immigration as I think it's good for the country, but am I not exactly for a wall or w/e either. I'm for the individual states making the immigration decision for themselves; if they feel it would harm their economy then they can disallow, if they think it would help them then allow. That said, no matter where, I do take issue to illegal aliens because they're not paying in, still, if a state wants to allow illegals, that's their bag I guess.

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I am on the right, and I am against Legal Third World Immigration.

Most of the complaints about illegal immigration also apply to legal Third World Immigration.

Indeed, some of them also apply to all immigration.

Such as wage suppression.

The Law of Supply and Demand by which illegal immigration suppresses wages is also in effect when the labor pool is flooded with cheap LEGAL immigrant labor.

 

[Correll]

Why do wingnuts need to speak for liberals? Or whomever it is they assume are liberals? Do right wing conservatives ever think a thought that exists in that space within their ears without having to apply it to another? It must be they cannot think on their own.

For most Americans the idea that one's ancestor's children are not automatically citizens is an absurdity. My mother's parents came from Germany, so then my mom who actually spoke German as a child was not a citizen? Guess her work at the Philly Naval yard during WWII was the work of an alien person. The people who want to change the 14th are the same fools that loved 'separate but equal' and many other discriminatory rules and laws of a less civilized society. Civilization often teeters on the brink of destruction as tribalism rears its ugly head. Grow up people the clown car has you occupied while the important issues remain in their control.

So, let's see.

We open up with some irrelevant partisan blather.

Then we have an Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

Then an irrelevant anecdote.

Oh, the Race Card, of course.

Followed by some more partisan blather.


How many nations have "Birthright Citizenship"?

 

[EverCurious]

Correll

(sorry I forgot to hit quote)

Well the thing is with legal immigration policies we can limit how many come in, thereby protecting our interests. I don't think we need to completely close our borders, we just need to better manage them to best benefit not only our citizen's, but those who would legally come in.

 

[Correll]

Correll

(sorry I forgot to hit quote)

Well the thing is with legal immigration policies we can limit how many come in, thereby protecting our interests. I don't think we need to completely close our borders, we just need to better manage them to best benefit not only our citizen's, but those who would legally come in.

We could, but we have not.

What we have been getting is mostly under educated, low or unskilled Third World immigrants.

Exactly the OPPOSITE of what we need, if we need anyone.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is awesome beyond words. I knew nutters wouldn't be talking about the economy during this cycle.....given the fact that we are in a period of recovery. But.....who knew that the leading GOP presidential candidates would be talking about anchor babies and birthright citizenship in a world where losing the Hispanic vote is untenable.

If any of your nutter fears were true.......I'd be right there with you.....but you've all been duped and your fears exploited.

Says the clown.

What's the matter, dummy? Speechless?

No, just pointing out that you are a clown and nothing you say has value.

Is that right? No value at all? None?

This is awesome beyond words. I knew nutters wouldn't be talking about the economy during this cycle.....given the fact that we are in a period of recovery. But.....who knew that the leading GOP presidential candidates would be talking about anchor babies and birthright citizenship in a world where losing the Hispanic vote is untenable.

If any of your nutter fears were true.......I'd be right there with you.....but you've all been duped and your fears exploited.

Says the clown.

What's the matter, dummy? Speechless?

No, just pointing out that you are a clown and nothing you say has value.

Is that right? No value at all? None?

You've demonstrated that by you refusal to defend what you say.

When seriously challenged you revert to clown mode, and respond with nothing but dishonestly, logical fallacies and personal attacks.

If you do not value the crap you post, why should anyone else?

Have you asked me to defend what I have said in this thread? I made a comment......you called me a clown. That's what went down here, dummy.

I've been waiting to be seriously challenged here for years. Are you going to be the one?

 

[Mac1958]

Trump wants to end birth right citizenship?

I understand that to re-write citizenship standards is complicated. But it's impossible to live like this, don't you think so? A child born in the US to citizens of another country would return to the country their parents reside in. That's the only right decision. Always was and always will.

There is no way to know when they're actually angry or "offended", or when they're just pretending to be so for political advantage.
.

 

[candycorn]

It's been proven that 100% of all of us pay sales taxes on purchases in municipalities that have sales taxes and the items purchased are taxable. Either way the notion that illegals do not pay taxes is simply not true.

I suppose I can agree, I mean if there's a sales tax, they're paying into that, but again, that's a rate of what? 4% maybe? (I actually don't know, no sales tax here so I'm guessing) vs the 25-30% that citizen's /must/ pay automatically in addition to the what-ever 4% sales tax.

It's 8% in Phoenix and was about the same in Houston. Not sure elsewhere; Cali is supposed to be off the charts but I never thought to ask. Why do you think Sanctuary cities exist...so they can capitalize on thousands more sales tax payers. Its about the only reason I can come up with.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Trump wants to end birth right citizenship?

I understand that to re-write citizenship standards is complicated. But it's impossible to live like this, don't you think so? A child born in the US to citizens of another country would return to the country their parents reside in. That's the only right decision. Always was and always will.

There is no way to know when they're actually angry or "offended", or when they're just pretending to be so for political advantage.
.

Who is they?

I thought you said that they are never offended and always pretend to be so they can use it for political advantage. They sure are cagey and have you confused.

 

[candycorn]

If we look into the constitution as originally written, it doesn't give congress the right or power to neither ban nor allow immigration, rather it puts that power in the states themselves. On the other hand the Chinese anit-imigration act or 1887 (*I believe) did so. So do we repeal the above and put the power in the states, or do we say Congress /can/ allow/disallow it and leave it up to a vote? ~ I personally would like to see it put to the states because after all they know their financial and economical situation far better than the fat cats in DC, but we might have to have some kind of "free passage" through anti-immigration states if some land locked states who would welcome them.

I think folks completely misunderstand the big issue that the majority of us have with illegal aliens is that they do not pay taxes, yet they are using the same resources as everyone else. If they were not just coming up here for free shit, it wouldn't be such an issue for most folks. This isn't the 1880's when racism was the main reason for excluding migration (as was the case in the anti-immigration act) It's about the economy and American's, not /against/ any foreigners. That changes the "compassion" situation. No one wants these refugees living in third worlds, but at the same time, part of being an American is receiving the benefits of citizenship, it means that you are contributing to the betterment of your nation, and more so in my mind, what kind of person moves to a new country and doesn't help support said country? These are not people I particularly /want/ in my country, which is why I'm kind of on the anti-immigration side of things. I don't think we should ban all immigration, but we need to ensure that these folks are becoming part of the country, not just ya know freeloading off our generosity.

Good post.

I am all for building a wall across both the northern and southern borders. In this day and age, you can make a bomb in your area and drive it into my area. While it's true you could still do that with border checkpoints, at least we have a chance to interdict the device. So I say build walls. But I hope everyone understands that as long as there has been walls, there have been ways to get around them. It will not end illegal immigration. You say you think folks miss the big issue...I think Trump supporters miss the big issue. It's bewildering that so many are being lead to believe that if you build this wall, that will stop anything. It will stop nothing; only limit the payload. Think of the wall as one of those turnstiles they used to have where you could walk into or out of a store but not take the shopping cart with you.

As for illegals not paying taxes; flat out wrong. Sales taxes are what fund the local economies. Illegals as well as legal immigrants shop at places just like the rest of us and pay their taxes--just like we all do. Federal taxes...that is another matter.

As for the rest of your post...you're right. This is why I say build the wall and simply declare those who are here who haven't been arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes as citizens. Bring them into the structures of taxation, commerce, etc... and let them start earning dollars (and being taxed on those earnings) legally. As for the supposed "line" they are supposed to get at the end of...sorry.

No one is saying that building a wall will be the end of the problem.

It is a needed step towards solving the problem.

No one? I'd check again or I would expect the candidate to express that--if we are going to hold all candidates to the same standard.

They have to express that they know that a wall is not a magical fix it all?

THat's not reasonable.

I hope you're kidding.


No...much like Obama saying "IF you like your insurance, you can keep it." Most understood the asterisk there being that if the insurance you had met ACA standards, you could keep it. But I can empathize with those who didn't. When Mr. Trump paints the picture of people just hopscotching across the border and a "big beautiful wall" is erected...I can empathize with those who think it will prevent immigration. He should clarify (if he knows the truth that it).