Immigration

[Danoff]

So what about illegals who are moved from one country to another with a promise of a better life only to find that they lose their passport, gain a drug habit and end up earning $200 an hour that they don't see a penny of?

That's only one part of illegal immigration, sure, but I think it demonstrates that (to repeat myself) it isn't a black-and-white issue.

Prostitution is not an illegal immigration issue, it's a prostitution issue. And the answer to prostitution problems like the ones you describe above is to legalize prostitution.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Prostitution is not an illegal immigration issue, it's a prostitution issue.

Neither of those things constitute all of the other.

And the answer to prostitution problems like the ones you describe above is to legalize prostitution.

Seriously? Restaurants are legal and that status doesn't alter the level of indentured slavery therein.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Meanwhile, we're going to take all of our asylum seekers in detention, and send them to America:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...anus-island-over-us-resettlement-deal/8022318

 

[LeMansAid]

Sometimes they are, it depends on the circumstances of their arrival/stay. That's not to say that they shouldn't be deported when appropriate, just that sometimes it's not black and white.

Ah, I see..... brown is the new black.

 

[novcze]

It is good for any economy to be able to bypass regulation and get more labor/goods for less money. Regulation is a heavy load for the economy to bear - that's why there are segments that choose not to. Everyone benefits from that.

Except all these legally employed who pay income tax as demanded by the law. Government need your money you know.
Why exactly should I be delighted by the idea of people who are in your country illegally are illegally employed without any regulation, because it is convenient for the employer?

 

[Danoff]

Neither of those things constitute all of the other.

Understood. I was addressing what I thought was your point.

Seriously? Restaurants are legal and that status doesn't alter the level of indentured slavery therein.

I have no idea what you're getting at. Prostitutes can become slaves to the people they look to for physical protection. Replace pimps with cops and that entire cycle is broken.

Except all these legally employed who pay income tax as demanded by the law. Government need your money you know.
Why exactly should I be delighted by the idea of people who are in your country illegally are illegally employed without any regulation, because it is convenient for the employer?

As I described earlier, the income level for most of these people sets them squarely in receiving benefits from the tax system. They would actually be a larger burden on the tax code if they were legally employed and "paying" (think receiving) taxes. Poor people (almost most people) do not pay federal income taxes in the US.

I'm not saying that it's exciting that people are skirting regulation. I'm saying that their actions are consistent with a black market created by regulation. A black market that is filled by undocumented and documented workers alike. I have seen this first hand, not second hand, first hand. I personally know multiple white American women living in the Colorado suburbs who participate in that black market to gain a few extra bucks (performing under the table daycare services).

Bottom line, illegal immigrants cannot be characterized as modern day slaves. They, and many others, are filling the strong economic pull toward under-the-table employment created by an over-regulation of workers.

 

[novcze]

I'm saying that their actions are consistent with a black market created by regulation. A black market that is filled by undocumented and documented workers alike. I have seen this first hand, not second hand, first hand. I personally know multiple white American women living in the Colorado suburbs who participate in that black market to gain a few extra bucks (performing under the table daycare services).

I agree, people will take whatever opportunity they have.

Bottom line, illegal immigrants cannot be characterized as modern day slaves. They, and many others, are filling the strong economic pull toward under-the-table employment created by an over-regulation of workers.

I wasn't dead serious, it was hyperbole. But what would be more effective when fighting illegal immigration in the US, wall or destruction of black market? For legal workers, can it be replaced with part-time jobs (which tend to be less regulated)?

 

[Danoff]

I wasn't dead serious, it was hyperbole. But what would be more effective when fighting illegal immigration in the US, wall or destruction of black market? For legal workers, can it be replaced with part-time jobs (which tend to be less regulated)?

A wall will just be a wasted of money. The best way to squash the black market for labor in the US is to to eliminate IRS reporting requirements. If we switched from an income tax to a sales tax the paperwork requirements would disappear and the majority of the labor black market would disappear with it. On the otherhand, we'd have a black market for skirting sales tax. I think that's easier to manage than labor though.

 

[RC45]

So the exact same as a number of US states then.

Well apart from Texas, which has no legal minium age to a court approved marriage.

Is there a reason you singled out Texas (even though you are incorrect) in this reply? Is the implication that Texas is backwards and unsophisticated like the rest of the red neck racist south?

 

[Scaff]

Is there a reason you singled out Texas (even though you are incorrect) in this reply? Is the implication that Texas is backwards and unsophisticated like the rest of the red neck racist south?

Given that I have extended family from Texas any such implication is in your own head.

It's an example and no it's not incorrect, now while it may be a poorly written piece of legislation and never get used, no minimum age is set for marriage of minors who petition a judge to get married without parental consent.


http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

Tex. Fam. Code Secs. 2.101 to 2.103. cover it in detail.

That aside I would still consider 14 to be a child, so regardless of parental consent it could still be considered child marriage.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Given that I have extended family from Texas any such implication is in your own head.

What would having family in Texas have to do with it's level of enlightenment?

 

[Scaff]

What would having family in Texas have to do with it's level of enlightenment?

Nothing, but it had lot to do with addressing the (false) claim I singled out Texas as 'backwards and unsophisticated'.

 

[Danoff]

Nothing, but it had lot to do with addressing the (false) claim I singled out Texas as 'backwards and unsophisticated'.

It's true, there are some great people in Texas. However, I have family in Texas and they're pretty backward and unsophisticated.

 

[RC45]

Given that I have extended family from Texas any such implication is in your own head.

It's an example and no it's not incorrect, now while it may be a poorly written piece of legislation and never get used, no minimum age is set for marriage of minors who petition a judge to get married without parental consent.


http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

Tex. Fam. Code Secs. 2.101 to 2.103. cover it in detail.

That aside I would still consider 14 to be a child, so regardless of parental consent it could still be considered child marriage.

In my own head? Much like your obsessive defense of all thing soros is in yours?

 

[Scaff]

In my own head? Much like your obsessive defense of all thing soros is in yours?

So rather than actually reply to the fact I was correct, you simply attempt an off topic dig.

Ok, but I think that pointing out the lack of evidence for conspiracy theories doesn't quite count as obsessive defence.

 

[RC45]

So rather than actually reply to the fact I was correct, you simply attempt an off topic dig.

Ok, but I think that pointing out the lack of evidence for conspiracy theories doesn't quite count as obsessive defence.

Reading you continual posts demanding more evidence pretty much appears that way

George Soros open and blatant attempts to topple the democratic process in the USA is well known and documented. Many times he and his organizations will skirt the law in what are blatant attempts to exploit the fact that many rules of engagement expect and assume the operators and participants to stick the spirit of the event or action and as such there may not yet be any clear cut legislation and/or settled supreme court decisions on which to mount legal objections to the "new angle" he and his organizations take.

IOW Soros will push the boundaries to levels never before tested that are in clear violation of the spirit and intent in the context of free and democratic societies/communities/economies and the results are sometime devastating. Breaking the Bank of England is just 1 such example. Sure he pockets the billion profit from the trade, but at what cost to the UK economy and tax payers in general?

Tanking a nations currency is one thing, but trying to subvert the democratic process in an attempt to bring about social and political change outside of the spirit of the system is another thing entirely.

And marriage of parties under 14 and 13 even with parental consent is not recognized by the State of Texas and such is not a valid marriage.

 

[Scaff]

Reading you continual posts demanding more evidence pretty much appears that way

George Soros open and blatant attempts to topple the democratic process in the USA is well known and documented. Many times he and his organizations will skirt the law in what are blatant attempts to exploit the fact that many rules of engagement expect and assume the operators and participants to stick the spirit of the event or action and as such there may not yet be any clear cut legislation and/or settled supreme court decisions on which to mount legal objections to the "new angle" he and his organizations take.

IOW Soros will push the boundaries to levels never before tested that are in clear violation of the spirit and intent in the context of free and democratic societies/communities/economies and the results are sometime devastating. Breaking the Bank of England is just 1 such example. Sure he pockets the billion profit from the trade, but at what cost to the UK economy and tax payers in general?

Tanking a nations currency is one thing, but trying to subvert the democratic process in an attempt to bring about social and political change outside of the spirit of the system is another thing entirely.

So you have lots of sources and evidence to back that up then

Now in terms of pushing financial law to the limit and profiting from it, didn't the US just elect someone who openly boasts about doing exactly that?

I've read an awful lot of claims about Soros and apart from the (not even remotely illegal) money he made off the Bank of England not seen a shred of evidence to substantiate them. In particular the ones around him being some ultra left wing character attempting to take over the world and ruin democracy (which not only have no evidence, but are fundamentally based on having to ignore the evidence that exists).

So why not head over to the Conspiracy Theories thread and provide the evidence you seem to know exists. Either that or stop posting unproven conjecture as if it were fact.

And marriage of parties under 14 and 13 even with parental consent is not recognized by the State of Texas and such is not a valid marriage.

I didn't say with parental consent, I said with the authority of the court, did you even bother to go and look at the state laws I cited?

You do however seem oddly fine with 13 and 14 year Olds getting married, does that not strike you as child marriage?

You may not want to acknowledge that child marriage happens quite legally in the US, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. Texas is not alone in regard to judges being able to grant marriage licences to minor and having no minimum age in law for doing so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

...trying to subvert the democratic process in an attempt to bring about social and political change outside of the spirit of the system is another thing entirely.

Isn't it arguable that Trump has just done exactly that? He had no popular mandate to run for office.

IOW Soros will push the boundaries to levels never before tested that are in clear violation of the spirit and intent in the context of free and democratic societies/communities/economies and the results are sometime devastating.

Sounds to me like you don't like what some other people think. You will eventually get over that, I promise

Breaking the Bank of England is just 1 such example. Sure he pockets the billion profit from the trade, but at what cost to the UK economy and tax payers in general?

You have your facts a little mixed up. As a hedge manager he made a bet that the pound was valued too highly in the ERM and invested in other hard currencies as a hedge. He was right, he won. He wasn't so lucky with Tokyo, I think, that cost him around half-a-billion pounds.

He had nothing to do with the creation of the ERM or the European process in general, simply wasn't his bailiwick.

 

[RC45]

Isn't it arguable that Trump has just done exactly that? He had no popular mandate to run for office.



Sounds to me like you don't like what some other people think. You will eventually get over that, I promise



You have your facts a little mixed up. As a hedge manager he made a bet that the pound was valued too highly in the ERM and invested in other hard currencies as a hedge. He was right, he won. He wasn't so lucky with Tokyo, I think, that cost him around half-a-billion pounds.

He had nothing to do with the creation of the ERM or the European process in general, simply wasn't his bailiwick.

You have your facts a little mixed up. As a hedge manager he made a bet that the pound was valued too highly in the ERM and invested in other hard currencies as a hedge. He was right, he won. He wasn't so lucky with Tokyo, I think, that cost him around half-a-billion pounds.

He had nothing to do with the creation of the ERM or the European process in general, simply wasn't his bailiwick.

Yes - as an amoral trader he "just did it". Consequences be damned yeah.

If you are ok with that then you should be okay with all other amoral events and actions carried out my anybody at ant time.

What an awful society you must dream to one day live in.

 

[RC45]

I didn't say with parental consent, I said with the authority of the court, did you even bother to go and look at the state laws I cited?

Neither did you. Parental consent is part of the process. Legal recognition is required for legal standing.

You do however seem oddly fine with 13 and 14 year Olds getting married, does that not strike you as child marriage?

You are very adept at putting words in peoples mouths.

You may not want to acknowledge that child marriage happens quite legally in the US, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. Texas is not alone in regard to judges being able to grant marriage licences to minor and having no minimum age in law for doing so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html

Without legal recognition the union has no legal standing.

Texas does not recognize marriages of minors under 14(m) and 13(f).

 

[RC45]

-dupe-

 

[TenEightyOne]

Already posted elsewhere... and perhaps you could prae se your point?

If you don't like how banks or funds make money then that's got little to do with Soros, surely? Which part of the video did you take particular issue with (given that posting 14 minutes of video was, imo, a lazy answer).

Yes - as an amoral trader he "just did it". Consequences be damned yeah.

Do you know what the ERM was or how many funds bet on it? Do you think that Sterling went in at the right value? Hard to see what you're getting at in face of actual facts.

-dupe-

Trip, actually. Or maybe the word's "tripe"?

 

[RC45]

Already posted elsewhere... and perhaps you could prae se your point?

If you don't like how banks or funds make money then that's got little to do with Soros, surely? Which part of the video did you take particular issue with (given that posting 14 minutes of video was, imo, a lazy answer).



Do you know what the ERM was or how many funds bet on it? Do you think that Sterling went in at the right value? Hard to see what you're getting at in face of actual facts.

Do you? Know how many funds shorted the pound that is? I was lucky enough to have money in a fund that was leveraged offshore - of course we only found out after the fact where they had placed the monies. Back then my small 'life savings' was nicely padded by the sound investments made by the fund managers. Back in the day $5000 was a princely sum for me, especially when changed back into in Rands.

That does not change the fact that it is valid to question the viability of such single large players influencing markets and outcomes to the general detriment of societies and economies.

 

[Scaff]

Without legal recognition the union has no legal standing.

Texas does not recognize marriages of minors under 14(m) and 13(f).

You clearly still haven't bothered to actually read the Texas state family law.

Yes it does.

It has a minimum age for granting a marriage licence without parental consent, it sets a minimum age for granting a marriage licence with parental consent. No minimum age is set for licences granted by a judge for licences without parental consent or when parental consent can not be given. A judge in Texas can, at his/her discretion grant a marriage licence to a couple of any age.

Texas family law doesn't set a minimum age in these circumstances, I've even posted a source for this and cited the exact section of Texas Family Law that covers it.

Please feel free to post the section you believe sets a minimum age in these specific cases if you disagree.

 

[mister dog]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Asylum seekers don't generally just throw a dart at a globe and pick whatever country it hits for asylum.
And none of that invalidates my point that they could go to any EU nation freely and openly. With the three I listed being the most popular.

Are you sure that you know where the illegal immigrants to Australia are coming from?

 

[Ex_Driver]

Are you sure that you know where the illegal immigrants to Australia are coming from?

Generally Northern Africa and the Middle East. Though I'm certain there's no small number of south Asians as well.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Generally Northern Africa and the Middle East. Though I'm certain there's no small number of south Asians as well.

Interesting. The top four in a 2011 breakdown immigrants in Australia was thus;

China (8070)
United States (5080)
Malaysia (4200)
Britain (3610)

Much further down were Afghans (1422).

In fairness you said "asylum seekers", they're not illegal immigrants, obviously.

 

[Ex_Driver]

Interesting. The top four in a 2011 breakdown immigrants in Australia was thus;

China (8070)
United States (5080)
Malaysia (4200)
Britain (3610)

Much further down were Afghans (1422).

In fairness you said "asylum seekers", they're not illegal immigrants, obviously.

Asylum seekers and those without visas or passports.
The Chinese and Malaysians I can believe. But I highly doubt Americans and the POHMs are sneaking in without legal documentation. Pretty sure the statistics you pulled up are specifically for people coming in with visas, and not seeking asylum. Which makes your point moot.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Asylum seekers and those without visas or passports.

One is an illegal immigrant, the other isn't.

The Chinese and Malaysians I can believe. But I highly doubt Americans and the POHMs are sneaking in without legal documentation. Pretty sure the statistics you pulled up are specifically for people coming in with visas, and not seeking asylum. Which makes your point moot.

Those coming in without visas (or out-staying the visa) and not then seeking asylum are illegal immigrants. That's just a fact.