Spring RTS Engine

LathanStanley wrote:Yes, its cheating your country, and the country of others. thus it is both Illegal, and Immoral.

Explain what you mean by cheating and how exactly somebody who is just an illegal immigrant is "cheating your country".

tombom wrote:

LathanStanley wrote:Yes, its cheating your country, and the country of others. thus it is both Illegal, and Immoral.

Explain what you mean by cheating and how exactly somebody who is just an illegal immigrant is "cheating your country".

1- taxes
2- welfare
3- loss of the labor pool to the mother country (mexico in this example)
4- the dilution of the labor pool in the host country (USA)
5- whats it do? it lowers the paying wages of the host country, and puts the mother country into a depression.

the more people that jump the border and work in another country, allbeit, anywhere, even if US workers work in Japan, it causes this problem, and the worse it gets.

the ONLY way to balance it, THE ONLY WAY, is for equal numbers of workers to swap sides...

and frankly, I don't see 6 million Americans immigrating to Mexico within the next 12 months..

edit: (how is this cheating your country?)
it reduces the standard of living on both sides... it hurts your fellow countrymen, which, IS your country.

LathanStanley wrote:

Felix the Cat wrote:alert, I'm contributing again.

Question to consider.

Is illegal immigration immoral?

(Note the distinction between immorality and illegality. Rolling stops/"California stops"/not coming to a full and complete stop at a stop sign are illegal but not, to most drivers, immoral. Cheating on your wife is immoral but not, in most places, illegal.)

Yes, its cheating your country

According to the US Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Mexican nationals residing in the United States send approximately $20 billion in remittances to their families in Mexico, constituting about 3% of Mexico's GDP. This represents an important source of income for Mexico.

and the country of others

According to this paper (PDF) by UCSD and NBER economist Gordon H. Hanson, "a rough estimate... is that immigration raises US GDP by slightly more than one-tenth of a percent". He does note that, between 1980 and 2000, "wages by native workers without a high school degree fell by 9% as a result of immigration". As with any net change in wages, this is a double-edged sword: products and services are provided at lower cost, but a subset of the population has less disposable income.

I would conclude that a purely utilitarian approach to the morality of illegal immigration would yield a net positive and thus would be considered moral; it has a negligible impact on the wider US economy and a great positive impact on the economy of Mexico.

Another brief note: in saying that you "cheat your country" and "cheat [the destination] country", you assume that the immigrant has both a) a moral responsibility to do that which benefits his own country, and b) a moral responsibility to do that which benefits the destination country, and that, furthermore, these two moral responsibilities are superior to the immigrant's moral responsibility to do that which benefits himself and his family.

This is a very debatable point, and it cannot be assumed that all will agree with this point of departure.

Felix the Cat wrote: I would conclude that a purely utilitarian approach to the morality of illegal immigration would yield a net positive and thus would be considered moral; it has a negligible impact on the wider US economy and a great positive impact on the economy of Mexico.

TO BEGIN, neither I nor you, understand finances enough to rule this as a good or positive outcome... so I will not try to argue a point with someone spearheaded on their viewpoint.

but where you state it as "negligible" to the US, it is not. again, consider the differences in total population. it affects us all. and the percentages will speak for themselves.

Felix the Cat wrote:Another brief note: in saying that you "cheat your country" and "cheat [the destination] country", you assume that the immigrant has both a) a moral responsibility to do that which benefits his own country, and b) a moral responsibility to do that which benefits the destination country, and that, furthermore, these two moral responsibilities are superior to the immigrant's moral responsibility to do that which benefits himself and his family.

This is a very debatable point, and it cannot be assumed that all will agree with this point of departure.

no, this will not be an agreeable subject, and I agree with you on how people judge morals within different light differently.

This is where it comes down "my" very racial viewpoint, or so I've been told, but again, it can be prooven with stastics and point.

Americans are raised, in general, with a sense of responsibility, law abiding morality, and consequence.

Mexicans, on the other hand, for a general sense, are not.

For example:
1- Teen pregnancy. Who has more teen pregnancy? Mexicans.
2- Criminal Background? Mexicans.
3- Passing grades in school? Americans.
the list goes on...

but ALSO! this is not just a "bash Mexicans" post... Americans have our faults too.... that Mexicans supercede on, Family Values for example, and Honor.

For example:
1- Gatherings for religious holidays, Mexicans >20 relatives per family, Americans, maybe 8...
2- Loyalty to blood relatives, Mexicans. More Americans will sell their soul, or brother's soul, for a profit, or personal gain.
this list also goes on...

anyways... my argument is thus:
Americans live in the United States, Mexicans live in Mexico.
American values and morals "should" be held in America, and Mexican values and morals should be held in Mexico.

bringing it to; When Mexicans cross into the US, they "should" abide by our morals... (Law supercedes desire, economic understanding that the american dollar supercedes another countries dollar, and responsibility and consequence are prime aspects of a successful person.).. not their values of (family over law, desire over consequence, and recklessness of economy for personal gain.)

In summation: I believe that in a strong sense, Americans can see the benefit of long term gain, and Mexicans (Illegals) can only see the short term gain.

I dunno, frankly, it boils down to education.

Lindir The Green wrote:

AF wrote:Some of the poorest people in the world live in the USA. America is very rich, but all that wealth lies within the hands of a minority. TV never shows 'the other people', you never read about 'the other people', but they exist, and they're far worse off than you can imagine. America has the biggest rich poor gap in the world.

America may have the biggest rich/poor gap in the world, but the poorest Americans are much better off than the poorest Mexicans, or Somalians, or Iraqis. And I think the title of biggest rich/poor gap in the world would belong to a place like the UAE, or some dictatorship somewhere.

That's part of the reason we have an illegal immigration "problem." Even the poorest Americans almost always have food, water, shelter, and sometimes even a halfway decent education.

In America we are so sheltered from the poverty of the world it's scary.

Thats a stereotypical view. You have no idea what the poorest americans are going through. There are numerous american families who struggle to get basic things like water. Indeed some americans syphon it off of water pipes illegally because if they didnt they'd die of thirst. And the reason they live in such terrible conditions? Because the vast majority of the US is oblivious to it, they think "we're the richest country in the world, USA kicks ass, woohoo", hey dont realize that a lot of people in the US live in 3rd world conditions.

im an illegal immigrant

:~P

Show me these poverty stricken people, AF. In 2006 we here in the US spent 417.5 billion dollars on welfare. If anybody is so poor they can't buy water, I'd ask what they are spending their money on (meth). Oh, and for reference, we spent 548.5 billion on social security, 770.8 billion on health care, and 743.8 billion on education.

Decimator wrote:Show me these poverty stricken people, AF. In 2006 we here in the US spent 417.5 billion dollars on welfare. If anybody is so poor they can't buy water, I'd ask what they are spending their money on (meth). Oh, and for reference, we spent 548.5 billion on social security, 770.8 billion on health care, and 743.8 billion on education.

Its those "Americans" who have no citizenship... or the citizens that are hiding from the law... that cannot get welfare and government sanctioned money.

other than that, I guess I'm just another oblivious stastic..

SpikedHelmet wrote:My view on immigration is simple.

If worker's can't cross borders, then neither should capital.

Meaning, if you feel that foreigners have no right to come into your country to take part in your economy than your economy has no right going into other peoples' countries and taking part in theirs. You can't have it both ways; either you shut the borders completely, in and out, or you open them completely.

I also think the anti-immigration "movement" is inherently prone to racist radicalism.

Flows of capital and flows of labor aren't perfectly comparable. Labor flows have very significant externalities that make the analysis much different.

Felix the Cat wrote:alert, I'm contributing again.

Question to consider.

Is illegal immigration immoral?

rofl, this thread is quality internets.
Just seeing the topic, i think "This is gonna be good lol"

One thing to remember is that Mexican is a nationality, not a race. Mexico is a racially diverse country, primarily mestizo, (some mix of Spanish and indigenous ancestry) but with plenty of people who are white, and smaller numbers of people with African or Asian ancestry.

Mexico has an excellent national statistics website at: http://www.inegi.gob.mx/inegi/default.aspx

Some key statistics: $10,600 average per capita income, 45% legitimacy rate, and an average of 7.2 years of formal education. All this with a Gini coefficient of 54.6.

FoeOfTheBee wrote:One thing to remember is that Mexican is a nationality, not a race. Mexico is a racially diverse country, primarily mestizo, (some mix of Spanish and indigenous ancestry) but with plenty of people who are white, and smaller numbers of people with African or Asian ancestry.

Mexico has an excellent national statistics website at: http://www.inegi.gob.mx/inegi/default.aspx

Some key statistics: $10,600 average per capita income, 45% legitimacy rate, and an average of 7.2 years of formal education. All this with a Gini coefficient of 54.6.

I know, I shouldn't stereotype.

sigh...

AF wrote:Some of the poorest people in the world live in the USA. America is very rich, but all that wealth lies within the hands of a minority. TV never shows 'the other people', you never read about 'the other people', but they exist, and they're far worse off than you can imagine. America has the biggest rich poor gap in the world.

This is not correct. You can check various measures of inequality here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... e_equality

The US isn't close to the top on any. I do think income inequality is a growing problem in the US, but let's not overstate it.

FoeOfTheBee wrote:

AF wrote:Some of the poorest people in the world live in the USA. America is very rich, but all that wealth lies within the hands of a minority. TV never shows 'the other people', you never read about 'the other people', but they exist, and they're far worse off than you can imagine. America has the biggest rich poor gap in the world.

This is not correct. You can check various measures of inequality here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... e_equality

The US isn't close to the top on any. I do think income inequality is a growing problem in the US, but let's not overstate it.

truth.

but it is still there.

417.5 billion dollars on welfare

770.8 billion on health care

Those are VERY small amounts - In the U.K the budget this year for the NHS (healthcare) alone is over ├âÔÇÜ├é┬ú1 trillion, thats over $2 trillion at current exchange rates. And thats with a population of some 65million as opposed to 300million or so? It's really not alot.

Also, i visit the U.S. alot, usually Texas, where you live i think, and the conditions some people live in are appaling, there are some streets filled with crumbly old little shacks, which hardly look bigger than the bedroom im typing this from. It's poverty, pure and simple.

Edit:

Durrr!! i meant ├âÔÇÜ├é┬ú100 billion, not 1 trillion! so 200billion dollers between 65million odd people. ^^

Cabbage wrote:

417.5 billion dollars on welfare

770.8 billion on health care

Those are VERY small amounts - In the U.K the budget this year for the NHS (healthcare) alone is over ├âÔÇÜ├é┬ú1 trillion, thats over $2 trillion at current exchange rates. And thats with a population of some 65million as opposed to 300million or so? It's really not alot.

its more than we can afford though... honestly...

maybe if you didn't spend so many trillions on a certain snafu

Decimator wrote:Show me these poverty stricken people, AF. In 2006 we here in the US spent 417.5 billion dollars on welfare. If anybody is so poor they can't buy water, I'd ask what they are spending their money on (meth). Oh, and for reference, we spent 548.5 billion on social security, 770.8 billion on health care, and 743.8 billion on education.

+1

I can think of no place in America where people regularly die of lack of food, water, or shelter. And I, unlike AF, actually live in America, and have been to several different regions.

Wherever you go there are food shelfs, and homeless shelters run mostly by our conservative Christians. And then, of course, welfare. I happen to have a stepcousin who moves around to different counties with his wife so he can keep getting welfare without actually having to look for a job. Unfortunately, it's cheaper to just give it to people like him than to investigate it thoroughly.

The poorest place I can think of in America is Appellachia, though I haven't been there. They have a lot of health problems from all the coal mining, but they still have food, water, and shelter. Maybe places like New Orleans are poorer, but, still, they are much, much better off than the poor almost anywhere else but Europe.

Cabbage wrote:Also, i visit the U.S. alot, usually Texas, where you live i think, and the conditions some people live in are appaling, there are some streets filled with crumbly old little shacks, which hardly look bigger than the bedroom im typing this from. It's poverty, pure and simple.

Yes, it is poverty. We definitely don't have as many safety nets as Europe, or maybe even any other developed country . More of our safety nets are by individuals instead of the government.

But if you go to Central/South America, instead of streets with old little shacks you have dumps with mounds of garbage and people starving everywhere.