Are eroding values compromising our freedom AND our economy?

Are you saying that good American people are breaking the law, hiring those illegal immigrants to save some bucks? So, the problem is not lazy people not wanting to work, but rather illegals creating more competition? Isn't competition good? Or is it bad when one has to compete with Mexicans? I don't understand, too many conundrums in your reply.

 

EXCELLENT POINT!!! Job competition promotes lower wages, and isn't this the desired effect? Professor Peabody, I think you'd better consult with Sherman on this.

 

If a kidnapper violates someone's body and kidnaps him then that is a violation of the victim's rights. I believe that I have stated before that I consider force to be justified in response to (and only in response to) a violation of person or property. So I would think such a violation would warrant and justify a responsive use of force.

Okay. As far as your question about who/what is it that currently determines justly owned property, my own answer is that this has already been determined. Each of us already owns property, and each of us knows what we own and what we don't own.

 

Usually, I am in firm agreement with you, but I must differ with you on this.

The Constitution has been a firm foundation for our government for two and one-quarter centuries, and I believe that its integrity can be best preserved by retaining as much of its originality as possible. I think amendments should be discouraged whenever Congressional legislation can serve the same purpose.

As I have said many times, conforming values are necessary to preserve our democracy. Laws should be made to enforce adherence to common values, not to define them. Interpretation of the Constitution should reflect the spirit in which it was written, not the will of those charged with interpreting it. It says something about our conflicting values when an odd number of justices are required to prevent deadlocks in Supreme Court decisions. Do you think that more clarification would change that? . . . . Or would it add more loopholes?

Changing the Constitution will not change us . . . . . and we are the problem.

 

You'll need to ask Obama why he won't go after them.....Take away their ability to get legitimate jobs with phony or stolen social security numbers. The SSA and IRS are all too well aware of multiple people using a single social security number. One lady from California had 81 people in 17 states using hers and this isn't a unique story. With modern computer databases, it wouldn't be hard to pluck out all the duplicate or non issued users excepting the original issuee. Then send notices to their employers the duplicate users payments are coming from that there appears to be an error and they must verify the social security number within 30 days or face massive fines and jail time. Then move on to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number filers, requiring them to provide their valid visa's allowing them to remain legally in the country, send notices to their employers the ITIN employee payments are coming from that there appears to be an error and they must verify the employee's valid visa within 30 days or face massive fines and jail time. Compile a list of those failing to provide the valid visa's and investigate if they are in the country legally, if not deport them. Enforcement had a ripple effect back in 2006 when IFCO (wooden palette maker) got caught in a Government sting. A local area electronics maker fired 88 employees that couldn't produce a valid SSN and they weren't under scrutiny by ICE. The jobs were quickly filled with citizens. E-Verify must become mandatory, no exceptions and used to verify citizenship for any jobs or government benefits. Take away their ability to get legitimate jobs and or government benefits with forged paperwork and they will go home on their own.

 

You haven't addressed the conundrums in your point, but, instead gone on a lengthy rant about how Obama's immigration policy is bad. Why is it bad to increase competition from immigrants coming here, but it is not bad for multinationals to increase competition with "slave" labor overseas? Both drive wages down, which according to free market lovers is a natural effect in the dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world they promote, and which, according to them, is good because it may lead to lower prices and higher profits (for the CEOs). I am still confused, so I ask again: Why is competition good, but not when it comes from Mexicans?

 

They are both bad. However................

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

.....The competition would be just fine if you eliminated welfare, food stamps and other public assistance. It's not true competition otherwise. It's easy to take a low paying job when the taxpayers backfill the rest.

 

More conundrums: Taking away public assistance will increase competition for low paying jobs even more, resulting in a further dramatic decrease in wages. The resulting dramatic decrease in demand will lead to further layoffs and even increased competition, resulting in even further decreased demand. Welcome to the world of deflation. But, I know, in fiscal hawk world, deflation is good.

 

Ownership disputes?

 

I posted that to see if you understood the laws of supply and demand. Large supply of labor, small demand for labor = low cost of labor. Apparently you do, so why can't you see that stopping the influx of illegals and chasing them out of the country would reduce the supply of labor driving up the wages necessary to hire them?

 

No, I'm saying that judges could hear cases having to do with violations of person and property, and a body of case law could be developed that would provide a precedent so people could know the legal ramifications of their actions. We would not be starting at square one with every case. Your question about whether it is justified to force one's way into the home of a suspected kidnapper would be settled and a precedent would be set that would guide the actions of people subsequent to this decision.

 

I don't know what you mean by ownership disputes. Could you elaborate or perhaps provide some examples?

 

Yes, case law could be the result of judicial decision, similar to the way the common law developed.

 

Okay, I see. I suppose that the person who thinks he owns the particular thing would sue the person he considers to be violating his property. A judge would then examine the evidence (contracts, etc) and decide whom he considered to be the lawful owner, and if a trespass did occur, what the legal remedy should be.

 

I'm fine with people doing whatever they want, as long as they don't violate the person or property of their fellow man.