Exactly. The food that's grown in California could just as easily be grown in Mexico, and if the government succeeds in stopping illegal immigration, that's what will happen.
I've long been in favor of allowing anyone into the country to work, that doesn't have a criminal record. I agree that the current situation sucks. People who are just trying to make a living shouldn't have to live in constant fear of the cops.
maybe hard work should pay well, even if it doesn't require a lot of skills. That's what the market is trying to tell us,
I disagree. The market tells us very clearly what that labor is worth, and trying to prevent people from entering the country to take that deal is an intervention in the market.
The immigration for mooching isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that you've chosen to pay people for doing nothing, and let them keep living on tax money indefinitely. Change those policies, and you'll get a better sort of immigrant.
Maybe they are, but many economists have come to the opposite conclusion, and the poster to whom I was replying was clearly trying to position them as the last word on the matter.
It just strikes me that this particular line of argument is morally repugnant.
Odd. Personally, I find it morally repugnant for the state to make it illegal to work for less than some fixed hourly rate. This eliminates the lowest rungs on the employment ladder, and dooms many people to years (and sometimes generations) of poverty.
Sorry, your appeal to authority argument doesn't wash. The center for immigration "studies" is an advocacy group. Take a few seconds to google for "Immigration Benefits", and you'll find the other side of that issue.
That's one of the great advantages that the United States has enjoyed since its founding (and a few centuries before that.) There has been a filter effect, with many of the best and brightest people from all over the world coming here, because the opportunities here are far greater than in most other countries.
Illegal immigration sucks money from the economy and stresses our entire infrastructure.
No, it actually makes our food and housing industries possible. Illegals as welfare leeches is a myth; in practice they tend to avoid contact with government as much as they can, and the upshot is that they pay far more in taxes than they recieve in benefits (like most of us.)
However, when fellow atheists who are scientists criticize him of the very thing I am criticizing him about, you should take notice.
I do notice, and I came to a different conclusion than they did. Neverthless, this is still just an appeal to authority, which in no way supports your contention that Dawkins failed to make his argument, a claim which I find contradicted merely by reading his book myself.
you view what I say as biased because I believe in God
I view what you say as biased, because it is overblown and vitriolic. I have no opion as to whether you do this because you believe in your imaginary friend. It's just as likely that you dislike Dawkins because you're jealous of his stature, or because he said something you take as insulting (quite likely, since you insist on unsupportable conjectures being true.)
As for being "proud" of being an atheist, that's not a point of pride any more than any other matter of common sense. I'm not "proud" of declining to bet on three-card monty, or following up on offers of millions of dollars in e-mails from Nigeria, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. The food that's grown in California could just as easily be grown in Mexico, and if the government succeeds in stopping illegal immigration, that's what will happen.
-jcr
. I nowdays understand UK is a country where you usually get hired not based on knowledge, not on ability, but on experience.
This does not bode well for the future of their economy.
-jcr
I've worked on some pretty massive derivatives-trading systems, and Obj-C is what made them possible at all.
-jcr
Wow, you are really karma-whoring
My karma has been maxed out for something like a decade or so.
-jcr
Somehow, I'll just have to make do without it. Oh, woe is me.
-jcr
don't try to treat the economics as though the laws didn't exist.
Of course they exist, and they interfere with the market, causing misery to many people. That's the problem.
-jcr
I think it would be great if Apple would adopt C# as the future of development on Mac OS X.
Please deposit your resume in the round file on your way out.
-jcr
There was a language called TOM which did that. It also let you pass the arguments in any order, and omit any you didn't care about.
-jcr
telling me to google something isn't acceptable
Did I ask for your approval?
-jcr
I've long been in favor of allowing anyone into the country to work, that doesn't have a criminal record. I agree that the current situation sucks. People who are just trying to make a living shouldn't have to live in constant fear of the cops.
-jcr
maybe hard work should pay well, even if it doesn't require a lot of skills. That's what the market is trying to tell us,
I disagree. The market tells us very clearly what that labor is worth, and trying to prevent people from entering the country to take that deal is an intervention in the market.
-jcr
I didn't choose these policies.
I was speaking in the plural, not about you personally.
-jcr
The immigration for mooching isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that you've chosen to pay people for doing nothing, and let them keep living on tax money indefinitely. Change those policies, and you'll get a better sort of immigrant.
-jcr
their methods seem sound
Maybe they are, but many economists have come to the opposite conclusion, and the poster to whom I was replying was clearly trying to position them as the last word on the matter.
-jcr
remember our agriculture is heavily subsidized.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. I see it as a separate issue than immigration, though.
immigrants of unknown criminal background from Mexico.
Oh, for crying out loud. You yourself are a person of "unknown criminal background", too. That was nothing but a racist slur.
-jcr
What are you talking about?
-jcr
It just strikes me that this particular line of argument is morally repugnant.
Odd. Personally, I find it morally repugnant for the state to make it illegal to work for less than some fixed hourly rate. This eliminates the lowest rungs on the employment ladder, and dooms many people to years (and sometimes generations) of poverty.
-jcr
Sorry, your appeal to authority argument doesn't wash. The center for immigration "studies" is an advocacy group. Take a few seconds to google for "Immigration Benefits", and you'll find the other side of that issue.
-jcr
That's one of the great advantages that the United States has enjoyed since its founding (and a few centuries before that.) There has been a filter effect, with many of the best and brightest people from all over the world coming here, because the opportunities here are far greater than in most other countries.
-jcr
Even in Britain, hardworking immigrants greatly outnumber the useless twats like Omar Bakri.
Immigrants cost me a fortune in tax.
Indolent people cost you money, whether they're immigrants or home-grown. Don't kid yourself, there are plenty of native-born losers there too.
-jcr
You have a rather broad brush there, sport. Some Americans fit your description, but many, many more are hardworking memebers of society.
-jcr
Illegal immigration sucks money from the economy and stresses our entire infrastructure.
No, it actually makes our food and housing industries possible. Illegals as welfare leeches is a myth; in practice they tend to avoid contact with government as much as they can, and the upshot is that they pay far more in taxes than they recieve in benefits (like most of us.)
-jcr
Or Nikola Tesla, Charles Steinmetz, and many others.
-jcr
However, when fellow atheists who are scientists criticize him of the very thing I am criticizing him about, you should take notice.
I do notice, and I came to a different conclusion than they did. Neverthless, this is still just an appeal to authority, which in no way supports your contention that Dawkins failed to make his argument, a claim which I find contradicted merely by reading his book myself.
you view what I say as biased because I believe in God
I view what you say as biased, because it is overblown and vitriolic. I have no opion as to whether you do this because you believe in your imaginary friend. It's just as likely that you dislike Dawkins because you're jealous of his stature, or because he said something you take as insulting (quite likely, since you insist on unsupportable conjectures being true.)
As for being "proud" of being an atheist, that's not a point of pride any more than any other matter of common sense. I'm not "proud" of declining to bet on three-card monty, or following up on offers of millions of dollars in e-mails from Nigeria, either.
-jcr
the fact that Dawkins fails at proving his point
He did no such thing. Did you even read the god delusion?
-jcr