Bush to Haitians: Keep your tired, poor, huddled masses
- Thread starter oreagan
- Start date
So America was settled by entrepreneurs and those fleeing political/religious strife . . . but now the border is closed to people fleeing political/religious strife?! Talk about hypocrites . . .
While that is true, people who came here also wanted a new life for their family, and didn't expect any type of government assistance. Sad to say, but this is not the case now. The situation in Haiti is hardly the situation in Iraq. Haiti doesn't have massive oil reserves.
im sorry but i know of a few farmering families by my home town that employ spanish american who may not have all there papers ... all of them say they are some of the hardest working people they ever saw... unlike all the waste of space that american citizens pop out
While that may be the case, Bush has already addressed that in a fashion you would probably like. I don't think the issue is as much if they will work or not, but more of an issue of why they get to immigrate illegally, whereas the bulk of us came here by legal means. Not only that, but we had to rely on the assistance of immigrants that were related to us or of similar kind, whereas the new idea of immigration lets immigrants use the welfare system that they DO NOT pay into. So these Spanish Americans... why did they leave Europe? Unless, of course, you meant Mexicans, or Hispanics...
I'm all for immigration, but it has to be done in a logical manner. We can't just use workers because they are cheaper than US workers. While that might appeal to the Capitalist side of our country, the fact remains that it is almost slave labor. I bet if we said they had to be paid the standardized US minimum wage, that all these business owners would suddenly change their mind. So why are we allowing quasi-slave labor again? Sure, they come here on their own free will, but it is still exploitation IMO. Businesses support legalizing under Bush's plan because it benefits them. It isn't because they have some human or social interest in their workers. Sorry people but the typical Corporation using cheap labor is interested in profits and pricing, and does not care about the livelihood of their worker. This plan is a short term fix for a long term problem. We are now seeing that the Unions are driving GM and Ford out of business. Just wait until Hispanics start unionizing. Then businesses can wave bye bye to the years of 50 cents an hour picking strawberries, or the plants across the Rio Grande that doesn't have to comply with US labor regs or EPA regs. We keep exploiting the latest class of cheap labor, but in the end that supply will run out. It was the Native Americans, Blacks, and now the Hispanics. One day people will refuse to work for peanuts you know. So do we engage in the Capitalist philosophy that will lead to meltdown eventually with a shortage of quasi slave labor, or do we start sucking it up with higher prices and lower wages for us US workers. Or maybe Americans might start saying they don't want their jobs outsourced to save 500 dollars on a car... are we concerned with business or individuals or both? It can be balanced.
just to clarify this..
your calling Clinton a hypocrite too? he had the same policy in place...if your consistent in your argument, then we can debate the merits of allowing Hatians in, if your not willing to call Clinton a hypocrite for the same actions, then your just Bush-Bashing..
No reasonable person would defend Jackson . . . but you have no clue if you believe he's the biggest racist/crook in America . . . or maybe you just need to avoid Rainbow Coalition gatherings.
Don't worry oreagan. Heartsurgeon just has liberals on the brain. Anyone that doesn't agree with his ultra conservative, extreme right wing thought process is immediately branded a liberal.
Do you know Ann Coulter? Think of HS as AT's Ann Coulter.
LMAO...I went to Florida on my honeymoon..The make you feel about as welcome down their
as the French do in Paris... I felt like I was on the outside looking in..
I didn't like it when Clinton refused refugees either. Most of his refugees (that I can remember) were in eastern Europe, though, so it would have cost money to fly them in. In the case of Haiti, we're spending money to keep them out in the form of Coast Guard expenditures.
Regardless, the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Correlary aren't there for kicks and giggles. If this civil war continues there's going to be a U.N. peacekeeping force sent in, which is a bad precedent. Granted, the U.S. hasn't the best record when it comes to interventions in Central and South America, but if that's not going to stop Bush in Iraq, it shouldn't stop him in our own backyard.
(I got this linked to in a PM, so I apologize if this is out of synch with the rest of the thread)
It is a difficult question, Mill, one that history toys with. Almost mocking.
A pure political or economic system inevitably leads to excess and ruin; history proves repeatedly, however, that every nation and people is subject to rises and falls, birth, stagnation, and death, not just those that adhere to a pure ideological structure. The question at hand is what mix of socioeconomic systems is best for the long-term perpetuation of our nation-state and way of life.
Pure socialism does not work; it is predicated upon the notion that men will work for the greater good of all, that they will work whether or not they get paid in proportion to their efforts. Men perform the minimum effort required for their own subsistence and perhaps (!) that of their family. Most do not work for long periods of time for some overreaching ideology, and in fact reach a point where the quantity, quality or both of their work declines to the point where the entire system becomes untenable.
This assumption is naive, and the converse is a basic tenet of capitalism; each man works solely for his own individual gain. This idea, taken to its logical extreme, also leads to ruin. When men do not incur the full cost of their actions, those hidden costs become allocated among the entire population, and over time this leads to a market failure. This can be combated in obvious cases, perhaps where a company has a factory that egregiously pollutes the area and sells the majority of their products in that same area - over time, those residents will boycott or pressure the factory to enact stricter standards, and the factory will eventually either tighten their standards and return to the good graces of the community, or it will move.
Globalisation, however, makes this type of cost allocation near impossible. The economic damage perpetuated by Nike in China is never felt by the majority of Americans, no matter how hard activists may strive; we can see the same effect with Wal-Mart, whose effects are usually not felt until long after the damage has been done.
There is a middle ground - regulation so that men are made to bear, as is reasonably possible, the full costs of their actions. This is at first glance a compromise between socialism and capitalism, because one assumes that because a person is bearing the social cost of their actions they are somehow altruistic; this is false. The driving force is still self-interest, however there is the additional facet of compliance with government regulations, the creation of which are driven (or should be driven) by the will of the people.
Capitalism combined with a republican democracy can work, as long as the two systems are kept ethical and transparent; with a large, decentralized federal system this is prone to manipulation, as we have seen with the power corporate media can wield in the political process, and the only solution I can think of is for the educated citizenry to take it upon themselves to use the power of the vote to enforce their interests as close as is possible to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
It is frustrating and impractical in its simplicity, but most useful principles are.
Cheers!
Nate
It is a difficult question, Mill, one that history toys with. Almost mocking.
A pure political or economic system inevitably leads to excess and ruin; history proves repeatedly, however, that every nation and people is subject to rises and falls, birth, stagnation, and death, not just those that adhere to a pure ideological structure. The question at hand is what mix of socioeconomic systems is best for the long-term perpetuation of our nation-state and way of life.
Pure socialism does not work; it is predicated upon the notion that men will work for the greater good of all, that they will work whether or not they get paid in proportion to their efforts. Men perform the minimum effort required for their own subsistence and perhaps (!) that of their family. Most do not work for long periods of time for some overreaching ideology, and in fact reach a point where the quantity, quality or both of their work declines to the point where the entire system becomes untenable.
This assumption is naive, and the converse is a basic tenet of capitalism; each man works solely for his own individual gain. This idea, taken to its logical extreme, also leads to ruin. When men do not incur the full cost of their actions, those hidden costs become allocated among the entire population, and over time this leads to a market failure. This can be combated in obvious cases, perhaps where a company has a factory that egregiously pollutes the area and sells the majority of their products in that same area - over time, those residents will boycott or pressure the factory to enact stricter standards, and the factory will eventually either tighten their standards and return to the good graces of the community, or it will move.
Globalisation, however, makes this type of cost allocation near impossible. The economic damage perpetuated by Nike in China is never felt by the majority of Americans, no matter how hard activists may strive; we can see the same effect with Wal-Mart, whose effects are usually not felt until long after the damage has been done.
There is a middle ground - regulation so that men are made to bear, as is reasonably possible, the full costs of their actions. This is at first glance a compromise between socialism and capitalism, because one assumes that because a person is bearing the social cost of their actions they are somehow altruistic; this is false. The driving force is still self-interest, however there is the additional facet of compliance with government regulations, the creation of which are driven (or should be driven) by the will of the people.
Capitalism combined with a republican democracy can work, as long as the two systems are kept ethical and transparent; with a large, decentralized federal system this is prone to manipulation, as we have seen with the power corporate media can wield in the political process, and the only solution I can think of is for the educated citizenry to take it upon themselves to use the power of the vote to enforce their interests as close as is possible to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
It is frustrating and impractical in its simplicity, but most useful principles are.
Cheers!
Nate
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter