Connecticut Passes Bill Giving College Aid To Illegal Immigrants

[Tick]

"Obviously the government's trying to get rid of illegals"

How is that obvious? Am I missing something? I don't really think they are trying much at all.

[El Barto]

Underpaid?   By what standards?  In relation to what a white guy in California will do the job for?  And lets not go comparing immigrant labor to slavery.  Christ.  Sweatshop is a slightly better analogy, but then, the people who work in sweatshops are actually a whole helluva lot better off than the people who don't work at all.  Personally, I'd like to see everybody earn a living wage, but sadly, that just isn't always an option.

Another interesting consideration.  The people claiming that companies should pay more than the market value for American labor were probably the same ones that bitch and moan (incessantly) about unions.  I don't think picking lettuce should be a $20 an hour job, and I don't think sweeping the floor at a Ford plant in Dearborn should either. 

[7StringedBeast]

Who is saying low end jobs should be paid $20 an hour?  That's outrageous.  But I have to say, picking vegetables in a field all day is worth 15 bucks an hour for a hard worker considering how labor intensive it is plus the conditions.  But why pay 1 hard worker 15 bucks an hour when you can pay two people less than half that each.  This makes 2 poverty stricken people instead of one doing OK individual.

Paying people more is good for the economy.  It means people can spend.  Live better lives.  It's not just a matter of cost for the company and products.  The people who work, need to have lives too.  Paying people not enough for them to sustain themselves is exploitation and its not good for anyone.

[El Barto]

But why pay 1 hard worker 15 bucks an hour when you can pay two people less than half that each.  This makes 2 poverty stricken people instead of one doing OK individual.

Actually, it helps two poverty stricken people immensely.

Paying people more is good for the economy.  It means people can spend.  Live better lives.  It's not just a matter of cost for the company and products.  The people who work, need to have lives too.  Paying people not enough for them to sustain themselves is exploitation and its not good for anyone.

In some cases I actually agree with you.  The problem is that it's not always possible.  You're not going to sell a big mac for $1.99 if you're paying the guy grilling it $15/h, and you're not going to sell many of them for $4.99.  You've got to strike a balance.  In the end, some people will slave over a grill for $6.50 to make shitty burgers that people spend 2 bucks for.  Others will work at a decent restaurant for more money making better burgers that people pay $6 for.  That's why there's different markets for McDonalds and Snuffers (or whatever quality burger place they have in your home town). 

[skydivingninja]

"Obviously the government's trying to get rid of illegals"

How is that obvious? Am I missing something? I don't really think they are trying much at all.

Well I mean we have laws in place, not to mention some amount of time devoted to federal raids and the like.  But notice how I also said "they clearly aren't doing the best they can" as well.  Which kind of led to my whole point about businesses adapting to survive, because it would be a much better use of time than complaining about the problem.  Which it seems you missed in favor of picking one sentence that set up an argument and apparently not bothering to read the rest of it.

EDIT: 7StringedBeast, I like how your hypothetical argument left out the possibility of the two poverty-stricken people being hard workers as well.   I do agree with your general principle of pumping money into the economy, but El Barto's right, real life business and logistics get in the way and its often not possible.

[Tick]

Who is saying low end jobs should be paid $20 an hour?  That's outrageous.  But I have to say, picking vegetables in a field all day is worth 15 bucks an hour for a hard worker considering how labor intensive it is plus the conditions.  But why pay 1 hard worker 15 bucks an hour when you can pay two people less than half that each.  This makes 2 poverty stricken people instead of one doing OK individual.

Paying people more is good for the economy.  It means people can spend.  Live better lives.  It's not just a matter of cost for the company and products.  The people who work, need to have lives too.  Paying people not enough for them to sustain themselves is exploitation and its not good for anyone.

Well said.
When people earn a living they spend money and the economy is stronger for it.
Or you can go with the self centered sentiment. "Let them work for nothing as long as I can benefit from it and have cheaper stuff."

This still is off from the op which is about illegal immigrants getting college assistance. That assistance helps them get educated to help them become citizens.
Seems a little ass backwards to me?
I am sympathetic to the fact there are kids of people who don't belong in the country that suffer for it. The answer is to send the message that although its breaking the law we will help you anyway?
I'm also sympathetic to all the homeless people in the U.S. who lost there jobs, and can't find new ones. They have lost everything and there kids are staving in the streets.

[Tick]

"Obviously the government's trying to get rid of illegals"

How is that obvious? Am I missing something? I don't really think they are trying much at all.

Well I mean we have laws in place, not to mention some amount of time devoted to federal raids and the like.  But notice how I also said "they clearly aren't doing the best they can" as well.  Which kind of led to my whole point about businesses adapting to survive, because it would be a much better use of time than complaining about the problem.  Which it seems you missed in favor of picking one sentence that set up an argument and apparently not bothering to read the rest of it.

EDIT: 7StringedBeast, I like how your hypothetical argument left out the possibility of the two poverty-stricken people being hard workers as well.  I do agree with your general principle of pumping money into the economy, but El Barto's right, real life business and logistics get in the way and its often not possible.

You really think I didn't read the rest of your post? You know I did.
I will accentuate one sentence if it helps me win the debate. Sure, why not. What do you think lawyers do. Its a game.
After all, at the end of the day we argue to entertain ourselves. Its what makes it so fun!
You wrote the sentence, I didn't.

[skydivingninja]

This still is off from the op which is about illegal immigrants getting college assistance. That assistance helps them get educated to help them become citizens.
Seems a little ass backwards to me?
I am sympathetic to the fact there are kids of people who don't belong in the country that suffer for it. The answer is to send the message that although its breaking the law we will help you anyway?

Or what its really saying is "we know you didn't have much a choice because no seven year old is going to stay alone in Mexico while your parents run off the US, but if you promise to become a citizen and work hard in school, you will be rewarded for it, even if you're going to be really hard-pressed to pay for that reward anyways."  Besides, then they'll be legal citizens in a good position to pump money into the economy and be productive members of society, and they'll probably be great Americans because they'll have actually lived that mythical, near-unobtainable American dream.  And they'll pass that on to their children.  Of course that's a bit idealistic of me, but I think its an admirable goal and a good, optimistic way of looking at things. 

It seems a lot of what this can boil down to is the debate between what's just or morally right and what's legal, or what the law says is right.  I mean, if we want to go into a giant philosophical discussion about it.

Ninjedit to your latest post:

You really think I didn't read the rest of your post? You know I did.

I couldn't have possibly known that.  If you choose to focus on one ancillary detail and ignore the real meat of someone's post you have missed the point entirely.  It would be like eating one green bean and ignoring the beautiful roasted pork with a honey-ginger glaze taking up more of the plate.

I will accentuate one sentence if it helps me win the debate. Sure, why not. What do you think lawyers do. Its a game.
After all, at the end of the day we argue to entertain ourselves. Its what makes it so fun!
You wrote the sentence, I didn't.

But in doing so you have done nothing to really respond to my post and have not accomplished much of anything, especially when there is no real incentive for you to play such a card.  You're certainly not making a lawyer's salary and you certainly don't need a reputation of "winning cases" the way a lawyer would.  So why not actually construct a real argument instead of using a fallacy?

[7StringedBeast]

No where Am I saying that low end jobs don't deserve low end pay.  But there should be a point where a wage is too low.  Does anyone remember history?  The key to a strong economy is getting people paid.  If anyone thinks its ok to pay people to do hard labor for under minimum wage, you're crazy.  There is no reason for an employed person holding a full time job to be under the poverty line (assuming they only have to pay and care for themselves) Shame on the employers for not paying for the good work of the employees.

Becasue immigrants are coming from absolute poverty to take bad paying jobs here, it is a step up for them.  Well that drives our low end job market way down.  We are lowering the bar to what is acceptable pay for this range of jobs.  That's not good for the economy at all.  It's instant satisfaction and adds to the declining investment America has in its own sustainable future.

[El Barto]

Hey, Tick.  I don't recall you answering my question from a couple of days ago.  Would you currently be raising that daughter of yours down in Ciudad, if you'd had the misfortune of being born a Mexican?

[Tick]

This still is off from the op which is about illegal immigrants getting college assistance. That assistance helps them get educated to help them become citizens.
Seems a little ass backwards to me?
I am sympathetic to the fact there are kids of people who don't belong in the country that suffer for it. The answer is to send the message that although its breaking the law we will help you anyway?

Or what its really saying is "we know you didn't have much a choice because no seven year old is going to stay alone in Mexico while your parents run off the US, but if you promise to become a citizen and work hard in school, you will be rewarded for it, even if you're going to be really hard-pressed to pay for that reward anyways."  Besides, then they'll be legal citizens in a good position to pump money into the economy and be productive members of society, and they'll probably be great Americans because they'll have actually lived that mythical, near-unobtainable American dream.  And they'll pass that on to their children.  Of course that's a bit idealistic of me, but I think its an admirable goal and a good, optimistic way of looking at things. 

It seems a lot of what this can boil down to is the debate between what's just or morally right and what's legal, or what the law says is right.  I mean, if we want to go into a giant philosophical discussion about it.

Ninjedit to your latest post:

You really think I didn't read the rest of your post? You know I did.

I couldn't have possibly known that.  If you choose to focus on one ancillary detail and ignore the real meat of someone's post you have missed the point entirely.  It would be like eating one green bean and ignoring the beautiful roasted pork with a honey-ginger glaze taking up more of the plate.

I will accentuate one sentence if it helps me win the debate. Sure, why not. What do you think lawyers do. Its a game.
After all, at the end of the day we argue to entertain ourselves. Its what makes it so fun!
You wrote the sentence, I didn't.

But in doing so you have done nothing to really respond to my post and have not accomplished much of anything, especially when there is no real incentive for you to play such a card.  You're certainly not making a lawyer's salary and you certainly don't need a reputation of "winning cases" the way a lawyer would.  So why not actually construct a real argument instead of using a fallacy?

You wrote the one sentence. My argument was sound.
Next...

[Tick]

Hey, Tick.  I don't recall you answering my question from a couple of days ago.  Would you currently be raising that daughter of yours down in Ciudad, if you'd had the misfortune of being born a Mexican?

Millions do it Barto.

and I don't really think you responded properly to my post so were even.

[7StringedBeast]

lol people not thinking Mexico has a middle class.

[ehra]

You wrote the one sentence. My argument was sound.
Next...

He said the government was trying to rid of illegals, and you said you don't think they are. It's hard to call that a "sound argument," all you did was disagree with him. That's not an argument.

This thread is getting ridiculous. If one person isn't ignoring multiple paragraph long posts to make a one line reply to a single sentence then the next is asking loaded emotional response questions that, at the end of the day, still don't make any point about how this whole situation should be handled.

[skydivingninja]

You wrote the one sentence. My argument was sound.
Next...

He said the government was trying to rid of illegals, and you said you don't think they are. It's hard to call that a "sound argument," all you did was disagree with him. That's not an argument.

This thread is getting ridiculous. If one person isn't ignoring multiple paragraph long posts to make a one line reply to a single sentence then the next is asking loaded emotional response questions that, at the end of the day, still don't make any point about how this whole situation should be handled.

Exactly this.  Here's a relevant, funny video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Tick, that response was, in my opinion, incredibly childish and ignores everything else for the sake of the way I worded one phrase.  A phrase which didn't really have a whole lot to do with my post anyways.  It was more of a lead-in.  Its posts like yours which kept me away from PR 99% of the time and I don't appreciate being looked at in such a condescending way.  

EDIT: not to mention, right after the sentence you seemed so focused on, I basically agreed with your viewpoint on government enforcement of illegal immigration!  I said the government wasn't doing a good job! 

[Tick]

You wrote the one sentence. My argument was sound.
Next...

He said the government was trying to rid of illegals, and you said you don't think they are. It's hard to call that a "sound argument," all you did was disagree with him. That's not an argument.

This thread is getting ridiculous. If one person isn't ignoring multiple paragraph long posts to make a one line reply to a single sentence then the next is asking loaded emotional response questions that, at the end of the day, still don't make any point about how this whole situation should be handled.

Exactly this.  Here's a relevant, funny video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Tick, that response was, in my opinion, incredibly childish and ignores everything else for the sake of the way I worded one phrase.  A phrase which didn't really have a whole lot to do with my post anyways.  It was more of a lead-in.  Its posts like yours which kept me away from PR 99% of the time and I don't appreciate being looked at in such a condescending way.  

EDIT: not to mention, right after the sentence you seemed so focused on, I basically agreed with your viewpoint on government enforcement of illegal immigration!  I said the government wasn't doing a good job!  

Sorry for being condescending to you. You just happen to generally be one of my big detractors, Ninja. You are seemingly always in the opposite corner from me and seem to want to have a field day on most of my posts. You can call me childish if you wish, but you have not exactly been one of my biggest fans. Is that a fair assessment?
Forgive me if it wears me out at times. I don't try to be an asshole. I try to give my honest opinions with respect. On this occasion, I guess I did not.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I don't understand why this has to be such a personal thing at all.

[Tick]

I don't understand why this has to be such a personal thing at all.

It is a bit personal for me because they are a few here including yourself that screw with me for sport. Its certainly not because I'm a ball buster. I give respect.

I don't understand it, but It is what it is.

[skydivingninja]

Excuse me?  I may be on the opposite end from you, and I know you've taken a lot of abuse from members in the past, but I haven't been one of them.  If not sharing your opinion most of the time makes me one of your "big detractors" though then I guess I am.  I've even tried giving you helpful advice to avoid the kind of heckling I know you receive!  Maybe you should try doing your research before you assume someone's out to "get you."  

Honestly, I'm done trying to discuss this thing with you.  Before this, even though we were clearly on opposite sides, I at least understood where you were coming from and was trying to maybe open up the possibility that this bill might have some great future benefits.  However, there's no point in me trying to put a well-thought-out post together only to have it entirely dismissed because of one sentence taken out and analyzed out of context because someone let emotions not even pertaining to the argument get in the way.  

[Tick]

Excuse me?  I may be on the opposite end from you, and I know you've taken a lot of abuse from members in the past, but I haven't been one of them.  If not sharing your opinion most of the time makes me one of your "big detractors" though then I guess I am.  I've even tried giving you helpful advice to avoid the kind of heckling I know you receive!  Maybe you should try doing your research before you assume someone's out to "get you."  

Honestly, I'm done trying to discuss this thing with you.  Before this, even though we were clearly on opposite sides, I at least understood where you were coming from and was trying to maybe open up the possibility that this bill might have some great future benefits.  However, there's no point in me trying to put a well-thought-out post together only to have it entirely dismissed because of one sentence taken out and analyzed out of context because someone let emotions not even pertaining to the argument get in the way.  

Wow, really?
I apologized for my response? Did you not read that, or don't accept it? I try to admit when I'm wrong and I thought I did?
Whatever.
We all know where we all stand.

[skydivingninja]

I did read your whole post, and I know you apologized, but even doing that kind of stuff the first place is something I'm not at all happy about. 

[Tick]

I did read your whole post, and I know you apologized, but even doing that kind of stuff the first place is something I'm not at all happy about. 

Hence my apology.
That's all one can do.

[bosk1]

Can you both knock it off and discuss the topic without getting into whether or not somebody's motivation might or might not be pure, please?  Tick, yes, you do unfairly get singled out, and that situation is dealt with when it arises.  But you also unintentionally invite some of it by being a bit overly blunt in how you express your opinions and you get overly defensive at time in assuming EVERYONE who disagrees with you is just piling on.  I'm not taking sides one way other the other in this.  I just suggest both sides take a step back and stick to the topic at hand without the additional drama.

[AcidLameLTE]

And to give Harry a bit of credit, that kind of scenario has already happened in this country.  Remember NINA?  "No Irish Need Apply?"  People were just as pissed off then at LEGAL immigrants coming to "take their jobs."  Its not a stretch to imagine that people would be complaining if all these latinos were coming in legally.  

Ignoring Orbert's attack on me, this was pretty much my point.

The UK has a lot of immigrants coming here legally from the Eastern European countries and people constantly complain that they're just here to take their jobs.

[Orbert]

Ignoring Orbert's attack on me...

Yeah, I noticed that.  You put words into other people's mouths, claim to know their real motivations, and accuse them of "hiding" behind words, but when someone calls you on it, it's an attack and you ignore it.  Nice.

[AcidLameLTE]

I was just making an observation based on what's happened here.

[Quadrochosis]

Yes, many immigrants come here illegally, but there is definitely a lot of dormant racism going on in this country too (America).

I see people every day (mostly at my job) talking shit about Mexican immigrants and complaining that "dey terk our jerbs!" when a fair portion of them are indeed here legally. Living on Long Island (which is quite a long way away from Mexico) especially, I'd be willing to bet that most of our Spanish speakers are here quite legally, but people like to hide behind the "illegal" word so they can spout their xenophobic nonsense without looking like too much of a racist.

[bosk1]

I was just making an observation based on what's happened here.

My observation is that you've been baiting people in this thread and if I see one more post doing the same, you'll be banned from P/R.  This is now at least the third warning I've posted in this thread.  While I don't particularly want to ban anybody, I'm getting tired of people ignoring my warnings, and this is the last one I'm going to give.

[AcidLameLTE]

The only intentional baiting I've done was the first post you warned me for in this thread.

[El Barto]

I see people every day (mostly at my job) talking shit about Mexican immigrants and complaining that "dey terk our jerbs!" when a fair portion of them are indeed here legally. Living on Long Island (which is quite a long way away from Mexico) especially, I'd be willing to bet that most of our Spanish speakers are here quite legally, but people like to hide behind the "illegal" word so they can spout their xenophobic nonsense without looking like too much of a racist.

I agree, but not only that, I'm not sure how much their legality (or lack thereof) actually makes any difference to the jobs issue.  Tick said earlier that if legal immigrants were undercutting his ability to earn a living, he'd still be pissed off about it, but at that point the problem would be his and not theirs.  That's an honest and commendable statement.     However, since I don't see any relationship between their legal status and their stealing of jobs,  it honestly seems to me to be mainly a justification for [somewhat understandable] hostility.