No, it's the country saying "Fuck Me, Get Yours" FMGY, not FYGM.So, that's a variant of FYGM, right? I'm sure that Trump, Kenneth Copeland & the Koch Bros say the same thing.
You can't default to your tickle down talking points when I am not advocating for trickle down.Republicans just gave a monster tax cut to tech companies, foreign earnings are now tax free, and they can transfer intellectual property overseas to shift US profits there and get out of US taxes. So you just keep waiting for the trickle down.
Well, to make a long story short, these tech companies are not going to take care of anyone. It's not their job. They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. The government has a responsibility to the society. It's the government's job to tax them sufficiently to take care of those in society who are displaced. Right now, the government tech company US taxes from 35% to 21% and allowed them to not pay taxes on foreign profits at all. And Amazon is going pitting cities against cities to get more taxpayer money out of them, not the other way around.You can't default to your tickle down talking points when I am not advocating for trickle down.
That logically means that there can be a fairly limited number of those tradesmen.
I'm confused. What was the Sen. Maj. leaders position on troop funding?Mitch McConnell objected to paying the troops during the shutdown! What an an unpatriotic ass. Shame on Mitch.
This is fun.
Let's say it again…
Mitch McConnell objected to paying the troops during the shutdown! Not just in principle, but Mitch McConnell objected to a motion to pass the bill authorizing military pay and death benefits during the shutdown.
One more time…
Mitch McConnell objected to paying the troops during the shutdown!
I'm confused. What was the Sen. Maj. leaders position on troop funding?
Again, not sure how much more "vetting" you can do as they pretty much self-selected into the program. The whole point of DACA was to get these people out of the shadows and registered with federal authorities. That's why a deportation order would be so evil...these 800K people literally stood up and said "I'm not a criminal...I have nothing to hide" and provided documentation on where they live, where they work, what level of schooling etc. along with fingerprints and other identifying info to verify if they've committed any crimes. They've done INS' job for them. The worry is that if no deal is reached by Trump's self-imposed deadline, there's no guarantee ICE doesn't go after them because they'd be low hanging fruit.Then I'm fine with most of those people staying, so long as they are properly vetted (not Hillary didn't do anything investigating, I mean reality). I think some path to citizenship would be the better path. That being said, it is very unfortunate that their parents chose to put them in this situation, and if they are deported, I won't shed a tear either... they are here illegally after all. But, I do think in that case, with proper vetting a path to citizenship does more good for everyone involved.
At least you were able to exercise your BBcode skills.Okay, I'm done with the fonts for now. McConnell's despicable deed can slither down the memory hole.
Again, not sure how much more "vetting" you can do as they pretty much self-selected into the program. The whole point of DACA was to get these people out of the shadows and registered with federal authorities. That's why a deportation order would be so evil...these 800K people literally stood up and said "I'm not a criminal...I have nothing to hide" and provided documentation on where they live, where they work, what level of schooling etc. along with fingerprints and other identifying info to verify if they've committed any crimes. They've done INS' job for them. The worry is that if no deal is reached by Trump's self-imposed deadline, there's no guarantee ICE doesn't go after them because they'd be low hanging fruit.
Also, passage of the DREAM Act doesn't mean that DACA recipients automatically become citizens. They become permanent residents (green card holders) and then the clock starts on the naturalization process (I think typically 5-7 years) during which time they are still subject to deportation if they commit a major crime. I came to the US as a 13 year old green card holder in 1993, but didn't get my citizenship until the first anniversary of 9/11.
I agree telling them to come out of the shadows and then calling them fair game is a shitty thing to do. So is deporting them to a country they didn’t grow up in. Amnesty is the only realistic solution, so is tougher immigration controls though. That’s the only workable trade off, legalize them and bring them into the fold and at the same time implement real legal reform and actually enforce the border. I oppose the wall because I think it will be extrodinarily expensive and not as effective as people on the right think that it will be, but the lax enforcement we have now isn’t ok either.
What lax border enforcement do you speak of, kimosabe? The population of undocumented immigrants in this country stabilized nearly 10 years ago. 2/3 of them have been here 10 years or more. The OMFG! Invasion! is history.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
We need to come to terms with the truth, not with the frothed up fears. Believing that we will deport 11M people is delusional so we need to find a different way to deal with it rather than current capricious practices of ICE. We need more internal peace & stability, not less. The Dreamers, the Salvadorans & anybody else who's been in this country for many years are a good place to start doing the right thing for ourselves, not just them.
Is that the "moral hazard" of seeking a better life for themselves and family or the "moral hazard" of being brought to America as a child? Imposing a "significant financial penalty" is counter-productive.Yes, the way we deal with it is let them stay without citizenship and after paying significant financial penalties for breaking the law to begin with. It's a longstanding feature of western political thought that criminals should not be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime, and allowing "undocumented workers" a path to citizenship without repercussions (and thus benefiting from their past misdeed of being here illegally) breaks that tradition and creates even more moral hazard than already existed.
Yes, the way we deal with it is let them stay without citizenship and after paying significant financial penalties for breaking the law to begin with. It's a longstanding feature of western political thought that criminals should not be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime, and allowing "undocumented workers" a path to citizenship without repercussions (and thus benefiting from their past misdeed of being here illegally) breaks that tradition and creates even more moral hazard than already existed.
That's a slippery slope. Next thing you know we'd give up the drug war. In case you might think this comment is off topic, note that exactly the same economic drivers are behind the border war and the drug war. There's big money to be made rounding up and locking up people.Illegal immigration is not a crime. It's a civil matter. That's no answer, anyway, because a lot of them can't pay because they're supporting American citizen children & future Dreamers. 2/3 of them have lived & worked among us for over 10 years.
We can declare Peace any time we want. That's right. Undocumented workers who've made a go of it won't leave voluntarily & we won't be throwing them out, either. We could just say "Much as it pains some of us to do so, You've been declared an immigration jackpot winner. Here's your permanent resident status. Go back to work!"
How hard is that? What do we lose other than stupid pride?
Is that the "moral hazard" of seeking a better life for themselves and family or the "moral hazard" of being brought to America as a child? Imposing a "significant financial penalty" is counter-productive.
That's a slippery slope. Next thing you know we'd give up the drug war. In case you might think this comment is off topic, note that exactly the same economic drivers are behind the border war and the drug war. There's big money to be made rounding up and locking up people.
No the moral hazard of us not enforcing our laws. Or maybe we should take your approach, if you're a Wall Street person and defraud people out of billions to "seek a better life for themselves and family" should just keep the dough. Because it's unfair to their kids if we take it away, their children had no say in the matter after all.
In your Wall Street example, the act is immoral. In the immigrant case, it is just illegal.No the moral hazard of us not enforcing our laws. Or maybe we should take your approach, if you're a Wall Street person and defraud people out of billions to "seek a better life for themselves and family" should just keep the dough. Because it's unfair to their kids if we take it away, their children had no say in the matter after all.
No the moral hazard of us not enforcing our laws. Or maybe we should take your approach, if you're a Wall Street person and defraud people out of billions to "seek a better life for themselves and family" should just keep the dough. Because it's unfair to their kids if we take it away, their children had no say in the matter after all.
We pick and chose what laws to enforce and how to enforce them all the time.
Law is a tool to achieve a fair and stable society. It’s not an end unto itself.
In your Wall Street example, the act is immoral. In the immigrant case, it is just illegal.