Protests

[Rich]

Illegal immigrants are economically, socially, and logistically harmful, yes.

.

Well if they're econimically harmful why are so many in employment in your country?

 

[Bodisathva]

Well if they're econimically harmful why are so many in employment in your country?

Because it is simple human nature...greed. Some will stop at nothing to increase their profit margin. Especially if it's as simple as hiring an illegal workforce that cannot be traced and work for less. Not only does the employer not have to pay at least minimum wage, but they don't have to pay in the Social Security and Unemployment taxes, either.

 

[Rich]

Because it is simple human nature...greed. Some will stop at nothing to increase their profit margin. Especially if it's as simple as hiring an illegal workforce that cannot be traced and work for less. Not only does the employer not have to pay at least minimum wage, but they don't have to pay in the Social Security and Unemployment taxes, either.

That's called capitalism, you either want some form of state control or you don't. All the evidence here suggests that as a nation you don't

 

[Bodisathva]

That's called capitalism, you either want some form of state control or you don't. All the evidence here suggests that as a nation you don't

Actually, I believe it's called exploitation. No one seems to have a problem with breaking up "unfair" monopolies because of the detriment to the economic machine... what's the difference? Capitalism does not equate to anarchy...there are rules which are spelled out and must be adhered to.

 

[Rich]

Actually, I believe it's called exploitation. No one seems to have a problem with breaking up "unfair" monopolies because of the detriment to the economic machine... what's the difference? Capitalism does not equate to anarchy...there are rules which are spelled out and must be adhered to.

Well isn't Microsoft seen as an unfair monopoly or Boeing?

 

[Bodisathva]

Well isn't Microsoft seen as an unfair monopoly or Boeing?

uh...not last time I checked. Ever heard of LINUX, UNIX, MacOS? AirBus, Grumman, Cessna, Aerospatiale, Saab?

 

[Rich]

uh...not last time I checked. Ever heard of LINUX, UNIX, MacOS? AirBus, Grumman, Cessna, Aerospatiale, Saab?

Airbus, Grumman, etc aren't American, how about Walmart, isn't that an American monopoly?

 

[Bodisathva]

Airbus, Grumman, etc aren't American, how about Walmart, isn't that an American monopoly?

I was not aware that it mattered they were not American (which, by the way, NorthropGrumman most certainly is)...if they're doing business here there cannot be a monopoly, can there?

monopoly:(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller;
exclusive control or possession of something;

Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly, it's just the world headquarters for cheap, plastic, crap. It's where people go to buy sub-standard items they don't care about.

 

[Rich]

You can argue semantics if you like, to me huge conglomerates have the market share and are thus virtual monopolies, they wipe out all small competitors before them, we have them here too.
As far as Walmart goes, they might sell crap but then there must be a huge demand for it in the States for it to grow that large, these huge companies control the prices they pay to farmers, suppliers etc., squeezing their profits, I doubt you'll see many farmers growing wealthy on the backs of low paid illegals.
Like I said, capitalism at its worst

 

[selenau837]

The point to this thread isn't monopolies, it is about illegal aliens boycotting.

You know, if they would put as much effort into becoming a legal citizen, they could be one by now. Instead they fuss, whine, moan and boycott.

 

[FoFa]

They might sell crap but then there must be a huge demand for it in the States for it to grow that large

It's where the illegals shop, because they can't afford Target.

 

[Rich]

The point to this thread isn't monopolies, it is about illegal aliens boycotting.

.

Well since according to the majority posting here they contribute nothing, why all the fuss about them boycotting?

 

[Rich]

It's where the illegals shop, because they can't afford Target.

Well if they can't afford to shop then how can they afford to pay tax whilst the rich of course put their wealth into tax havens

 

[dan-cat]

Not at all...at no point in time have I needed to stoop to racial or societal slurs to get my point across...events and actions speak for themselves.

Then why are you not sensitive to the fact that other people in the media do? Illegal immigrants are NOT locusts. That is my point, not whether illegal immigrants should face the penalty of the law.

But a beginning is necessary...how about start enforcing the laws?

Of course, but this beginning must not contain the premise that we are dealing with sub-humans. I reject the rhetoric, not the fact that there is an immigrant issue.

No, you misunderstood...not human technically...technically we believe in freedom of speech and therefore allow this idiocy to continue because we grant them that right.

This underlines the hypocrisy I spoke off. Our society has allowed the illegals the right to work for a wage. On paper they don't have this right but in reality they have been given it. However it is ludicrous to expect a vast group of people to remain silent over a long period of time in this situation. Our society allows them to work as long as they remain quiet, that is hypocritical.

Ah...so we now know why Charlie Manson is still alive, huh? Why the DC sniper is just now coming to trial... There are certain circumstances in which there should be no mitigation. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the theory behind it and it is a good idea...most of the time. Other times, there needs to be an "Express Lane"

I don't see the benefit of likening the criminality of the typical illegal immigrant to a psychotic. It just shows more flawed metaphoring.

Untrue, the recent protests have merely brought the problem to light for those who don't experience it.

Indeed, and even though they co-ordinate huge, peaceful and organised demonstrations through the USA, some still consider them to be a pestilence.

We have an almost unending supply of welfare rats that could be used to fill these positions without importing more problems. (or sitting quietly buy and allowing it to happen)

Why do you insist on using this pestilent theme? Why do you think it appropriate to liken people to rodents?

Well then, by all means...let them do as they wish. Maybe we can institute a "frequent law breaker" rewards program. If you can manage to stay illegal for 5 years, you're a citizen. Maybe the next "reality" TV series? We'll call it "Jose's Run" or maybe "Sneak Factor". They have broken the law and should be punished...right along with those who employ them.

Where are you getting the idea that people should not be subject to the penalty of the law? This is just a strawman argument, plain and simple.

BUT...we are realizing the effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment, we have seen the effects of pollution and are taking steps to correct it, we realized that lead-based paint caused problems, figured out asbesdos caused cancer, realized smoking causes cancer, and took and are taking steps to correct the problem. The solution will not be instantaneous but must be started

...and yet again your use of language is poor. Why are you likening people to a cancer? Why do you not get that this kind of rhetoric is wrong? What is this solution you speak of and in what way does it relate to chemotherapy?

May I refer you back to the start of your post...

Not at all...at no point in time have I needed to stoop to racial or societal slurs to get my point across...events and actions speak for themselves.

 

[selenau837]

Well since according to the majority posting here they contribute nothing, why all the fuss about them boycotting?

Because it is completely asinine to boycott in the first place.

 

[dan-cat]

Because it is completely asinine to boycott in the first place.

I admit, it may do more harm than good for their cause because boycotting could be interpreted as coercion. However, I don't see why it comes as such a surprise to people that this happening. A huge group of people all wanting the same thing will always start making noises about their wants sooner or later, regardless of their legal status.

 

[KenHigg]

Because it is completely asinine to boycott in the first place.

It was just an excuse by the sorry _____'s to get out of work for the day...

 

[Rich]

Because it is completely asinine to boycott in the first place.

Why?

 

[dan-cat]

It was just an excuse by the sorry _____'s to get out of work for the day...

LMAO Yes back to the fields with them, next time we'll shackle them so they can't take the day off from the job that they're not supposed to have been given in the first place

 

[selenau837]

I admit, it may do more harm than good for their cause because boycotting could be interpreted as coercion. However, I don't see why it comes as such a surprise to people that this happening. A huge group of people all wanting the same thing will always start making noises about their wants sooner or later, regardless of their legal status.

They will accomplish more by doing everything the correct way. Rarely has boycotting EVER done any good. It has only hurt those who did it. There are better ways to make a point.

Why not all show up at the office to become legal citizens at once. If they have 10,000 people showing up at their door step to become legalized then it may make them citizens faster. It could make the government get rid of all the red tape and do a mass legalization.

Stuff like that will have more of an impact than boycotting.