Here's a few Ron Paul clips from Youtube (his supporters are fast and internet savvy):
About this clip: I do agree with the sentiment that radical Islam is a dangerous force in and of itself (read their writings and their holy books), but what Paul is right about is that the invasions by US and the propping up of terrible dictators turns the moderates to more extreme measures and causes them to listen to the crazies. I do think that both sides have valid points on this and a frank discussion needs to take place about American foreign policy on this issue. It is a complex issue concerning economics, power-structure, international relations, and very importantly dangerous infectious ideology.
About this clip: Sound economic explanations, worth discussing and considering. I disagree on the illegal immigrants comments, though his perspective is worth listening to. I still say coming down hard on employers is the only way to get control of illegal immigration concerns - punish the Americans first ;-). Also, I am against doing away with income tax - that normally means that "fair tax" bullshit. His conclusions about oil are simple and truthful and something most Americans overlook.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Yeah, the immigrant thing bugs me, and what's worse is that most people fundamentally misunderstand it. The most common argument I have heard for why we need stricter immigration is that undocumented immigrants don't pay taxes and that they use up social services like education and health care, thereby taking it away from good old tax-paying, honest Americans. The problem with this logic is that is both stupid and wrong. The first question one should ask is "who actually pays taxes?" I mean, who deducts the taxes from your paycheck and hands it over to the govt? If you are self employed you do it yourself. If not, you rely on your employer to deduct the appropriate amount of taxes and pay it over to the government. So if undocumented immigrants aren't paying taxes, whose fault is it? The answer is the employers who are paying people under the table so they don't have to pay worker's comp and other taxes. So, if you want to fix that problem you need to do a better job policing and punishing "illegal employers".
The second issue is really a bit of a red herring. Several reports and studies have shown that undocumented workers use public services (with the exception of education) at an extremely low rate. in fact, most of them avoid using public services because they fear being caught by the authorities. Education is a bit of different issue since the state requires all children to attend school. So it does cost something. Still, I would refer to the former argument. All of this is solved by forcing employers to pay up.
In reality, I always feel like what's really hiding behind anti-immigration arguments like national security, taxes, American jobs, etc. is just plain and simple racism or xenophobia or that lame ass idea that "America is for Americans" and we don't want anymore colored people walking across the border. I mean, we took this land from darker people fair and square, right?
As per the first video clip, Giuliani and Romney can both SUCK IT. Saying that terrorism is not related to US foreign policy is just stupid. Many in the CIA, the policy community, and academia have been saying for years that the greater the level of intervention the more pissed off people get at the intervenor--blowback is a term that may be over used, but it's a reality. Ron is right on on this point.
He is also right when he tries to address the manner in which US foreign policy feeds radical Islamist violence. Romney and Giuliani act like Islamist violence just arises exogenously from the ether. True, there is a violent, radical movement within Islam, that is not a question. The question is why does it appeal to so many people and how does it grow and spread. Muslims don't just wake up one day and think "damn, I hate the US because its people don't worship Allah, let women drive, drink beer, and shop at Wal-Mart" and then run down to the local market, buy some explosives, and hop the next flight to the USA. There has to be some mechanism that moves people from belief (even fundamentalist belief) to actually engaging in violence. One mechanism, the one Paul identifies, is US policy. Invading Muslim countries, backing repressive autocrats, and giving blanket approval to Israeli policies that result in Palestinian or Lebanese deaths deepens the resentment of the US, mobilizes radicals to commit violence, and turns moderates into radicals. Why is Rob Paul the only Republican to recognize this? Giuliani and his fat, arrogant, short-sighted self acts like Ron Paul is a traitor to the nation for even suggesting that US policy may have encouraged terrorist attacks against the US. Well God damn, clearly America's mayor knows what's best when it comes to foreign policy and understanding the minds of the world's Muslims! Muslims must hate America because it's powerful and wealthy, not because it uses that power and wealth to arrogantly bully around or buy off anyone that doesn't agree with it. That makes perfect sense.
I still disagree with the assertion that Islamic violence (or any religious or fanatical violence) cannot arise from belief systems and the will to act on one's faith. I do not disagree that the economic and political pressures help exacerbate the whole thing. But to not recognize the inherent zeal for self-explosion that exists in fundamentalist Islam is to be willfully ignorant in my opinion. If it were the case that it was all the US or even the West's fault, we would only see attacks on the US or western powers. That has not been the case. There have been attacks in the Far East too by Muslim militants. The bloody meme that is spreading through the Islamic underground IS one of Islamic domination (technically that is a rather historic theme in many regimes in the Middle East since the creation of Islam). Does US foreign policy make the situation easier for moderates to become extremists? Definitely. But I do believe that it would still be existent without it too - supported by the Koran and Hadith (these two texts are part of the reason it spreads so quickly). I truly think it is a complex and multifaceted issue that needs to be explored, but to just dismiss the power of ideology and religion is not being honest in my opinion.
Maybe I'll post a blog in the next day or two quoting the Hadith and Koran and then you can try and explain to me what the passages mean if they don't demand violence (usually fire) for the unbeliever.
Reed Says: "In reality, I always feel like what's really hiding behind anti-immigration arguments like national security, taxes, American jobs, etc. is just plain and simple racism or xenophobia or that lame ass idea that "America is for Americans" and we don't want anymore colored people walking across the border. I mean, we took this land from darker people fair and square, right?"
Wow, where to begin.....
It's easy to dismiss an argument when you think the guy making it is a racist, bucktoothed retard. Come on Reed, that's ridiculous and dismissive, and you should know better. And I'm always amazed at how the far left use the term “Anti-Immigration”, where as those who are making the arguments for reform use the term “Illegal Immigration”. That's about as intellectually dishonest as it gets... It's like you're not even trying to speak the same language, or even understand what's being said. You just making a knee jerk reaction because it happens to be an issue championed by the other side. You seem absolutely unconcerned with whether or not your opposition to it is right or not. This has nothing to do with prejudices against Immigrants. This is a NATION of immigrants from every corner of the world. But this is a nation with a system designed to take in and assimilate immigrants in a way that will incorporate them into our society as naturally as possible. Is it perfect? No. But it's there, and it's the law of our land.
1. There are an estimated 7 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Exactly how many, we're not really sure, because they are entirely undocumented. But that's already a problem. Both in terms of trying to gather meaningful data and in terms of overall security.
2. Blaming employers and not the immigrants that come to this country illegally is still only half-right. You can't remove personal responsibility from half the equation. If they know they are skirting our laws, and break them willingly of their own free volition, that's wrong. Just as wrong as hiring a worker that you know is an illegal immigrant. Don't pretend that people who come across the border illegally are somehow devoid of responsibility.
3. Only workers classified as employees of a company have holdings withheld for taxes by their employer. Independent Contractors are responsible for filing their own withholdings for 1099s, and making quarterly deposits to the IRS. The vast majority of people who make their living in construction & landscaping consider themselves independent contractors, and the company that payrolls them pay in cash. So if an illegal worker gets paid in cash, like everyone else on the job, and doesn't file his taxes with the IRS, isn't paying his or her taxes. And that *is* illegal. Besides, how can an employer pay the withholdings and payroll taxes if their employee doesn't have tax IDs? You CAN'T. An employer HAS to employ an illegal immigrant as an independent contractor.
4. In 2006, California spent an estimated $10 billion dollars on the education, health care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants... roughly an average of $1,000 a year in taxes from each household. And that is California alone. How many of these illegal immigrants file 1099s with the IRS and pay their taxes Reed? The answer is: Few to None. So who's left holding the bag? Honest citizens that pay their taxes. And Democrats, too. (zing!) :P
6. Of the 43 million folks without health insurance, an estimated 25% of them are Illegal Immigrants. Now consider this: when a family of illegal immigrants give birth to a child in the States, the hospital cost for the birthing is around $5k dollars (I should know). If there are complications, the cost could skyrocket to around $125,000. There after, each child is eligible for around $1000 a month in welfare, because the reported earnings of that family are well below the poverty mark.
(One reason why the whole “Anchor Baby” policy needs to be addressed, and probably done away with)
And let's compound the problem by taking on misc health care expenses that aren't related to giving birth to a so-called "anchor baby", and the fact that almost a dozen hospitals along our southern border have had to close down precisely because the cost of treating illegal immigrants ballooned out of control. I'm not sure what studies you're looking at Reed, or who did them, but hundreds of hospitals around the nation are recoding millions of dollars in their respective budgets being spent on illegal, undocumented immigrants. Is that an “extremely low rate”? Yes, it probably is... It would realistically only take a couple hundred critically injured illegal patients a year to push that number into the millions. But, that's still a problem. Having to eat a couple million dollars every fiscal year can be financially hobbling (and it's growing every single year)... It stalls the purchase of new equipment, taking on more staff, training current staff, expanding facilities to match population growth, so on and so forth. It's just simple math.
7. Yes, I've heard the argument that illegal immigrants come into this country and do shit jobs for slave wages that no one else will do, so we should be thankful, and recognize their importance to our economy. That's morally self defeating. My question is, why is this a good thing? Why is it ok for us to pay slave wages to anyone, instead of paying them what the job is worth in the local market? How can we bitch about outsourcing thousands of jobs remotely overseas when we are willing to outsource jobs here at home so freely? There are millions of Americans that will pick lettuce for 8.50 an hour. They'll scrub toilets for 10. But they won't do it for below minimum wage. Thank goodness little brown people that talk funny will!!1!
Why are they worth less? Because they're willing to take it?
---------------
Look at it this way: Say you own a house... you have an Indian, and another American as roommates.
Then one day, you find out that a Mexican who has been mowing your lawn and his family are living in your crawl space. "Poor guy... Well, I'll just keep paying him, and let him live there. He's not doing any harm, and he mows my lawn for cheap!"
The Indian is pissed because he had to bust his ass for several years to get his name on the list for this house.
The American is pissed because he doesn't like the idea of having an illegal resident living in the house, hiding in the crawl space. It's skirting the rules of the mortgage, and the electric bill has gone up $50 ever since the Mexican ran an outlet down there for watching TV.
Are they ignorant racists for not wanting the illegal Mexican living in the crawl space?
Now let's say that next month, you get a bill from the hospital for $10,000 dollars, because the Mexican accidentally lopped off his foot with the lawnmower and needed medical attention. But the bill goes to the tenets of the house because the Mexican couldn't pay it, and SOMEONE has to.
The Indian and the American are now adamant that the Mexican leave, or is at least documented in some way so that he can be paid minimum wage, have a tax id, and be held responsible for the 10,000 dollars.
Are they really ignorant racists, Reed? Seriously?
... oh yeah, and on Islamic Fundamentalism, heh: I'm inclined to agree mostly with Pope. While the U.S. has done a good bit to exacerbate muslim ire, just minding our own damned business (to our own peril, mind you) wouldn't halt the advance of militant Islamic fundamentalism.
For instance, let's consider Osama Bin Laden: At what moment did he become an militant extremist who despised everything about the west? And why? According to his own recollections, and those of his closest friends, that moment came when he was a young teenager, attending the bachelor party of one his close college buddies in Lebenon (back when it was the "Paris of the Middle East"). His buddies drank excessively, and they all went to a strip club...
When Bin Laden saw women parading their naked bodies without shame or remorse in front of the men, he was so ashamed, so outraged, that he stormed off, and never associated himself with those friends again. He was convinced that western values, devoid of morality and humility, were destroying the muslim soul.
At that moment, he became a militant bent on waging Jihad. Not because the U.S. fleet shot down an Iranian passenger jet, not because the U.S. dropped a bomb on some village somewhere, not because Israel had unwavering U.S. support, and not because the U.S. made buddies with the Saudi Crown.
It was because he saw boobies, and his religion told him that was a bad, bad thing.
Bin Laden has also said repeatedly that terrorist violence against the US is a) exact vengeance for the loss of Muslim lives, b) for US support of Israel and complicity in the collective misery of the Palestinians, c) the US and Europe not intervening earlier to protect Muslims in Bosnia, and d) US troops in the holy land. So, I guess you will have to pick which of his stories to believe. He could also just be a bored, nut-job black sheep from a billionaire family that thought it would cool to start a global war, you know for shits and giggles.
I am not at all saying that ideology and religion don't motivate people to commit dastardly acts. Clearly it can, and radical Islam is one great example. It is also visible in radical nationalist Hindu groups that kill Muslims in India, in Jewish settler communities in Israel, and Southern Baptist abortion clinic bombers like Eric Rudolph.
The fact is though that most Muslims aren't radical, so the question is what drives some to become radicals, zealots, and martyrs? Islam has a violent history (as does Christianity and especially Judaism) and there are plenty of religious texts, mainly the Hadith, that call for perpetual war against non-believers. In this first case, the question should be why for example has Christianity toned down the militancy while Islam seems to be ramping it up? Is it because Christ was all about the love and Mohammad was more about waging war? There may be something to that. But if that's the case why aren't all Christians sining kumbaya and all Muslims blowing up the infidels? There are a whole host of intervening variables that influence the outcomes of violence or non-violence, moderation or radicalism. There may well always be a core group of religious nut jobs out there, but whether they can successfully motivate people to get on board in large numbers is not so simple.
Again, yes some people will just be driven to martyr themselves because they think that's what God wants. But the variation in levels of terrorism over time and the recent spike in Islamic violence is not answered by arguments about the nature of Islam or what the Hadith say because those two things are constants over time. To explain this, and the concomitant mobilization of radical Islam, we have to identify the variables that have changed: western economic and military intervention, changes in the macroeconomic systems in Muslim states, globalization of the media (e.g. the boobies Beck mentioned), and the weakening of the "state" in many Muslim countries. The latter is hugely important because whereas traditionally the state provided health care, eduction, jobs, etc. that role is increasingly filled by Islamist charities who also often happen to be radical and sometimes violent political organizations (see Hizbullah). The result then is that people start paying more attention to and being more dependent on these groups--take the increasingly dominant role of religious madrasses in educating Pakistani youth. People aren't flocking to the madrasses because they want to study the Koran all day and go fight a jihad. They are attending them because there aren't any other choices; the state is too weak to ensure public education and the Islamists are more than happy to rake in a ton of new recruits. So people attend, become more religious, and then graduate and have no job options because all they studied was religious text. Then they are poor, religious, unemployed, and pissed off. This only worsens when they see pictures of dead Iraqi, Afghani, Palestinian children on Al-jazeera. So if the Imam says as Muslims we all have a duty to go wage the jihad, well hell...there's ample reason to do it now.
So does religion have a role in shaping and promoting violence? Yes. Is it all all 1:1 relationship. Hell no.
Two final things: 1) Terrorist bombings in Africa and the Far East have primarily targeted western diplomatic or tourist sites, so it is still anti-western. It really is mostly lashing out at western powers. 2) Several studies have shown that terrorists attacks are no more likely to be Muslim-sponsored than backed any other ethnic/religious group. Looking at terrorist attacks over the past 30 years you get a broad cross-section of violent actors, both religious and secular, the leftists in Germany and Italy in 1970s, the Tamil Tigers, IRA as well as Ulster defense squads, leftists and rightist in Colombia, Muslim nationalists in Thailand, Hindu nationalists in India, and on and on. In fact, before the 1990s most of the terrorist violence seems to have been from secular leftist groups. But he the Cold War ended and so did much of that zeal. So what accounts for the current and recent zeal in Islam? It ain't just because it's in the Hadith or Koran.
And for Beck. I wouldn't call it academic dishonesty. I don't think that's the right term. But language is used to frame an argument. It's the reason I choose to use the term "undocumented" rather than "illegal". Are these immigrants breaking the law when they either outstay visas or sneak across the border? Yes. So it's illegal. But criminality is subjective, and calling undocumented immigrants illegal implies (purposively) that they are all dangerous criminals. Recreational drug users and any high schooler drinking a beer has violated a law, but we don't collectively refer to them as illegal youths. The "illegal" label was chosen for political purposes because people are more willing to say they support efforts to stop illegal immigration than they are to say they support efforts to halt the flow of undocumented residents.
It goes both ways, man. The same is true for things like capital punishment vs. death penalty, torture vs. enhanced interrogation, pro-abortion vs. pro-choice. My favorite though is the "death" tax. That one always makes me laugh. All political, all meant to lead people to one conclusion or the other. All politics is symbolic and so is all language.
The one immigration argument I have heard that I am sympathetic to is that it's not fair to all the immigrants that follow procedure and wait on line for their fair turn. The problem is that quota systems and the selection criteria bias against the typical Mexican laborer in favor of the Indian computer scientists. I understand that from an economic point of view the country prefers skilled people, so we want more of them relative to unskilled laborers. But that means that the Mexican guy cutting Beck's lawn had about 0 chance of actually getting in legally. I know that many, many Mexicans do enter legally, but again, relatively speaking the average laborers chances are nil (and several years). So, when faced with grinding poverty in Michoachan and paying somebody a couple hundred bucks to smuggle into Texas where he can get a job and send money back to the family, I don't begrudge the hypothetical Mexican his choice, even if it is an illegal act. In all honesty, the legal route was a non-option.
Lastly, that figure you cite for California suggests that none of the money spend on undocumented residents was ever paid back in taxes. A lot of undocumented workers do in fact pay taxes, so that 10 million dollar figure should shrink quite a bit when you adjust for what they pay back in. And that data came from a study done by FAIR, an anti-immigration, sorry, "immigration reform" group. Surely all accurate and unbiased. A 2004 study by the Center for Immigration Studies, another immigration reform group, that looked at costs to the federal government said that "Illegals" cost the federal govt 26 billion and paid in 16 billion in federal taxes. It is still a 10 billion dollar deficit, but its proportionately much lower what FAIR said.
For another comparison, a 2005 report from the Texas state comptroller's office stated that undocumented workers actually generated more revenue than they cost the state in services:
"The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received."
One problem is thought that often times community or local resources are the most used and the least likely to be reimbursed by the state or federal government. So the higher up the aggregation the more things balance, but sadly further toward the bottom the disparity is larger and more obvious.
I have a few problems with your reply about Islamic fundamentalism there Reed:
1.) I do think that comparing nationalist movements to a spreading ideology is like comparing apples to AIDS. What I am concerned about is the wide dissemination of a Islamic domination ideology supported by holy books and spread via the internet and video sources. I honestly do not see this being the same as a nationalist movement. What other religion or even secular ideology is reaching out across international borders to promote hatred and bigotry and death on such a mass scale? (Having said all that, I would still like to read these studies you refer to, can you send them to me?)
2.) And to continue to argue that it is spread among the poor and destitute alone is completely false. Many who are the strongest supporters of this insane ideology are college educated and middle class.
3.) I think there is a major psychological difference between say a Rudolph or a McVeigh or even a Indian Hindu national who puts a bomb on a train and a person who straps on a bomb (or flies a plane into a building) because they believe they will receive an extra reward in some mythical afterlife. The structure, nature and psychological effects of Islamic teachings on jihad are literally mind-warping. So much so that you become willing to sacrifice your life to kill innocent people for the benefit of this imaginary force you call God.
4.) A theory of mine: Christian doctrine and ideology as far as oppression and vile acts are concerned are due in large part to culture rather than New Testament theology (though it CAN be interpreted as violent too, same with Judaism). The acts begin to be moderated when societies become more secular in their governance (save maybe the French Revolution). Muslim culture in general wants to be governed by Islamic/sharia law - see their holy books again. Call me too Western if you want, but a theocracy is not conducive to human rights or tolerance in my opinion. But this is really more a gripe about politics and the separation of church and state and little off topic. So...
And finally in conclusion I would add that I do not wholly disagree with you either. Improving living conditions and economic well-being and health care in the Muslim world probably would decrease the violence some, but I do not think it will ever bring a complete cessation to it. I am not saying I have an answer either, but having read books like "The Lucifer Principle" on memes and their place in history, "The End of Faith" that talks at length about the threats faced by the world from Islamic fundamentalism, and applying a horrific type of natural selection that can be laid out by concepts in "The Selfish Gene", I am frightened by what might be to come if we do not confront this problem head-on and soon.
***I think since I have written at length about this in 2 separate posts recently that I might should give this issue a rest, but the fact remains that I see it as a major threat.***
And on immigration, I still think cracking down hard on employers is the key to it all. Huge fines for hiring illegals = fair wages = paid taxes = documented workers. I am not saying that the illegal immigrants have no culpability in this, but if employers are too afraid to hire them then I don't see how the process for fixing the problem isn't put in place. Perhaps I am being too simplistic though, I am willing to listen to both sides of the argument on this issue still. I am trying to keep an open mind.
To Pope: Many of your comments are fair, but you still haven't explained the variation. Why is there a spike now? What moves a moderate to a radical? And given that even most radicals don't commit violence, what compels that extra step from zeal to martyrdom?
Also, there are important differences between secular-nationalist and religious terrorists. But again, suicide terror bombings have their modern origins more with nationalist Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka than with Muslim zealots. And there is some evidence that it is used with greater frequency more because it works than because of faith or religious belief. For starters I would recommend taking a look at Robert Pape's Strategic Logic of Suicide Bombing or Mia Bloom's Dying to Win. They both make some good points about this. I'll send you some other sources.
Now, you're right in the sense that ignoring the threat of transnational radical Islam would be unwise. It is something that needs to be addressed. And you are right that differs from nationalist terror because it is transnational and has the potential to unify radical Islamist across borders and organize them for mass violence against the West. The reasons why it has emerged and grown though are equally important to understand and has as much to do with both local and international politics as with religion. Here I would recommend Benjamin Barber's Jihad vs. McWorld, Kepel and Roberts Jihad: The Trial of Political Islam, and Mamdani's Good Mulsim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror.
Reed on Language: Fair enough. I move that from now on, we'll compromise and use the term "Undocumented Illegal Immigrants", and call it square. :)
But don't attach too much weight to the word Illegal, either. There are vastly different scales of illegal activity in any legal system. Not stopping at a 4 way intersection is not as criminal an activity as killing and eating babies. They aren't even in the same league. But they are both illegal. Sure, "illegal" carries a negative connotation. But "undocumented" doesn't. And believe it or not, the world doesn't end when we use words that carry a negative connotation to describe behavior that is bad.
As far as the statistics we've quoted to each other: More often than not, the data will be skewed to reflect what the collector wants to find, I don't doubt that. I'm more inclined to believe that the numbers are somewhere in the middle. But even if they're in the low end of that range, that's still a significant burden. And the fact of the matter is, whatever the scale of that burden, it's been enough to completely shut down community hospitals, and that alone should be alarming.
And again: How exactly does an undocumented worker pay Federal Taxes when they don't have a social security number or tax id? Sure, they may pay sales taxes on the goods and services they purchase, but how again to they pay their federal and state taxes if they are undocumented? That part still escapes me.
Brian: Well, the problem with that is the fact that jurisdiction over penalizing such companies typically fall on the shoulders of local and state governments.
Illegal Immigration, however, falls under federal jurisdiction... So over the past couple years, whenever a community tries to levvy fines against companies who hire illegal aliens, the ACLU immediately sues the town council, citing the fact that they are overstepping their jurisdiction, and should mind their own business.
Typically, while I may disagree with liberals on many an occasion, I do try and understand our respective opinions and respect our differences.
But this. This is just madness. To actively try and subvert states and local communities that are trying to take action to correct a problem that the federal government has dropped the ball on is just nothing short of amazing. (And infuriating)
Some ultra right wingers say that the reason that liberals are fighting so hard against illegal immigration is to bring as many poor people into this country as possible. The more economically depressed hispanics you have with anchor babies hooked on welfare, the larger the democratic voter base.
I really really try not to believe this. It sounds absolutely absurd. But the extreme measures that Democrats take to assure the continued flooding of illegal immigrants into our communities makes it difficult at best not to be cynical and suspicious.
Tell me this isn't the case Reed, and I'll believe you. I have no doubt that many (if not most) people on the other side of the issue believe what they do because they feel genuine sympathy for the folks that come across the border looking for a better life.
Hell, I feel it for them too, I'm a human being. No one in their right mind wouldn't sympathize with someone trying to make a better like for themselves and their family.
Our problem is that they are doing so while willfully and intentionally skirting our laws, with no regard for our system, or the way we want to integrate people into our communities.
Now, I'm all for a program in place that would allow immigrants into this country to work, that's not a problem in my mind at all. But these people NEED to be documented and processed through the system in an organized and legal fashion so we know who's coming into this country and why. Having people sneak across a fence in the middle of the night is absolutely unacceptable.
To answer the question on taxation, there are a couple of ways that taxes are generated by extra-legal workers (how's that). 1) Sales tax, which you mention. 2) Property taxes, all those shiny new Chevy pickups and ginormous vans add up to a bunch of property taxes (there are of course lots of other incidentals as well). 3) Fake documents=legal taxes. Now, I am not condoning the fake document enterprise at all, but lots and lots of employers are rigid about making sure employees have documents, but they could care less whether they are real or not. A friend of mine worked as an office/human resources manager for a lumber company in up-state SC and they made sure every employee had a social security. The know that 75% were fake, but they really didn't have much a way to check for sure, and why would they when they can't get native born US citizens to haul/cut wood for 8 bucks an hour. So all the taxes they took out went right to the fed and state...and to social security, which these guys would never use because most of them will work for a few years and then head home. And even if they don't, they aren't likely to collect the SS money anyhow because employment is one thing, scamming the fed out of SS money much more likely to attract suspicion.
As to your other query, that is argument that I have not heard before and I find it a bit repugnant. I mean, I guess some "liberals" would think that increasing the number of poor/working in the country would cut the power of the GOP, but really most Latinos are pretty conservative, and while they may want social programs and all that, they are also largely anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and generally pro-religion. So, a plan like that would tend to bite liberals in the ass. Know, it is likely true that liberals cater to the Latino population since they are a substantial voting block. But extra-legals can't vote anyway so I am not sure why it would matter.
As for why I go out of my way to support this group and protect their rights, for the first part, I have know lots of Latino immigrants and the vast majority are good people that are here so they can better provide for their families. They work hard and contribute a lot to the community. And they more often than not get treated like shit. Most that I have met would prefer to be here legally (and most don't even want US citizenship) and have no problem paying taxes. There was just little option for them to come here legally, and the options that do exist, like on agricultural visas, suck! Ag visas tie a worker to 1 job, and if that job sucks ass or they are treated unfairly their only option is to go home. In eastern NC the tomato and strawberry farms are notorious for their exploitation of these workers. The guys are housed in what are essentially internment camps and they make minimum wage, and if they complain too much they get fired and deported. It's a legal option, but it sucks. So it's a lot better to sneak in and a least get to choose whether you want to wash dishes 60 hours a weak or work construction or landscape or whatever. One way to start fixing this problem that I have hear little discussion over is by improving the visa situation and keeping better tabs on the employers that arrange them. This is a racket in and of itself that often leads to honest people losing almost everything trying to get here legally. I have some friends that do immigration law or work in issues of worker/immigrant exploitation and you would be surprised how many people get screwed by deals like this. It's not as bad as all those Russian girls who end up in brothels in Serbia, but it's still bad.
A correction and addition: Bloom's book on suicide terrorism is actually titled Killing to Win: The Allure of Suicide Terrorism; Pape's book is Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Both were published in 2005.
I also wanted to recommend Hafez's Why Muslims Rebel.
Post a Comment