Supreme Court rules in favor (5-4) of wealth test for immigrants
- Thread starter Slim
- Start date
I forgot a republican passed the three strikes billIm not entirely against this ruling, but this will only get worse, especially if Trump gets reelected. I doubt RBG makes it another four years. Also, chalk up another L for the "RepuBLicAns n DEmoCraTs r dE saME" crowd.
the claim is that they don't bring enough to the table
if you come to america with low skills, and work a low paying job that requires you to take government assistance, then you're not a "boon to america". you're a drain on the system
The issue is that you're using an artificial measure to determine what they "bring to the table."
Businessmen have lobbied to keep wages in the gutter and then used economic collusion to ensure they stay there, allowing for the working people survive anyway due to EITC, Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8, etc. You're acting like those programs subsidize the existence of poor people when those programs are really subsidizing the wealthy business owners who refuse to pay poor people wages that are in line with what they actually are contributing.
Whether or not someone earns low wages is NOT the measure of whether they're a drain on the system. Tons of wealthy people are an actual drain on the system when their entire wealth comes from government contacts, subsidies, gaming the financial system, economic rents, etc. They are a drain on America yet they make great money cause they know how to work the system and have the financial power to do so. Whereas low-wage workers actually contribute a ton to the system, they are a big part of keeping the US economy strong, but they don't get paid like it because they don't have any power.
Obviously there's a different answer for everyone.
We started the refugee system because we rejected a bunch of refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and then thousands of the people we rejected died in concentration camps. Basic human decency says that when you have by far the most wealth in the world, you can afford to be humanitarian and keep some people from dying. Especially when you gained a lot of that wealth at the expense of those very people. Now I would RATHER we stopped fukking up their countries so everyone could stay with their families and communities without having to flee. But the reality is it's an emergency and a matter of life and death for a lot of refugees and asylum seekers.
Other people really are filling jobs we need filled. Work ain't a zero-sum game, there isn't a fixed number of jobs out there and not everyone who is out of work is willing to take the jobs that immigrants take. I'm not saying that's true for every single immigrant, but a lot of immigration is actually a financial benefit for the workers here rather than a loss.
And some people are just trying to be with their families.
Last edited:
When people use the term "drain on the system", they usually refer to using more government money than is being put in by them. As you know. I don't understand your take. What are the wealthy "draining"?
That's a distorted way of measuring the system made up by poor-hating wealthy who wish to justify themselves. By that definition, every single slave was a "drain on the system" because they didn't put in any money, right? Even though they were the economic power that made the entire South run and their owners (and thus the governments) profited enormously off of them?
The working poor create an enormous amount of value with their work. It's ironic as fukk that 1000 employees will create an enormous amount of profit for some capitalist who may not even be working at all, that capitalist will pay them slave wages while he takes that profit, those employees will be called a "drain on the system" because they're not even making enough money to pay taxes, while the wealthy person is now a "benefit to the system" because he paid taxes on the profits he took from the work that THEY did.
Think about it. If we went with your method of accounting, then the more profits the owner steals from the workers, the more he's a "benefit to the system". And the less workers get paid, even if they're still doing the SAME work and creating the SAME economic benefit, makes them more of a supposed "drain on the system." If taking less money out of the system makes you more of a drain, clearly you're doing the math wrong.
The capitalists create these isolated-from-context ways of looking at shyt because they want to deflect from how they've rigged the whole system to benefit them. Don't fall into that trap.
And that's not even the only way the wealthy drain the system.
First off, the wealthy extract an enormous amount of money from the government via contracts and subsidies, far more than the poor ever will. Of course, by their accounting that's not counted as "a drain" because they don't want it to be. But all those farm subsidies, military contracts, infrastructure contracts, tax breaks, favorable mining and logging rights on public land that are often just given away or in some cases even PAID TO THE COMPANY to take, that's all money being drained out of public coffers for the wealthy. They return some of it in terms of a useful product for the public, but much of it is only funding pure bullshyt and a lot of it is pocketed as profit.
Second of all, when the wealthy extract economic rents from the financial and real estate systems, they are simply pulling money out of the working portions of the economy and putting it into their own pockets without any benefit to the system. That's a drain on the system even if the money isn't directly pulled from the government. That's the very definition of an economic rent.
Low Quality Posting
Wrong. The government didn't spend more money on slaves than the slaves put into the government.
Stopped there.
Wrong. The government didn't spend more money on slaves than the slaves put into the government.
Stopped there.
This is Higher Learning, not the impeachment hearing. At least try to have an honest discussion.
the cac mamba
Banned
good post, but i can't say i agree
you're saying that some rich cocksucker who employs thousands of people is more of a 'drain on the system' than someone who comes here with low skills, can do a job that tons of poor americans could do already, and ends up needing help from the government to support himself. that's asinine
good post, but i can't say i agree
you're saying that some rich cocksucker who employs thousands of people is more of a 'drain on the system' than someone who comes here with low skills, can do a job that tons of poor americans could do already, and ends up needing help from the government to support himself. that's asinine
Whose decision is it to underpay those thousands of people and create the "drain on the system"?
You need to think all the way through it. You're claiming the help from the government is what creates the "drain on the system". But the rich cocksucker COULD pay those people enough money to keep them from needing government help. He just chooses not to so he can push the profits to himself instead. So HE is the one draining the system by diverting government money to cover gaps that he is knowingly creating by paying shyt for wages.
You seem to assume that the workers are replaceable but the rich cocksucker isn't. I don't know why you can assume that. In at least some cases if not most, the rich guy is just taking up space that some other rich guy would be taking up if he wasn't there. Those 1000s of workers would be employed either way, because the capital obviously exists and the market exists and the raw materials exists. But if you eliminate those workers, are you really sure they would find other people to fill those jobs? There are lots of places in America that simply don't have enough people willing to take low-paying hard-labor jobs, or non-secure seasonal jobs. Some of those places don't have a permanent population at all. How many Americans citizens do you know who are willing to take on migrant work?
It's much more believable to me that you would fail to replace those workers than you would fail to replace some figurehead with cash at the top of the operation.
And that's before you even get into that a lot of subsidies and economic rents aren't even attached to meaningful employment, they're straight stealing money from the system and not employing many people at all.
Last edited:
ill
Superstar
Your high waged, high skilled family would clearly be able to help support the rest of your family that isn’t as well off. Not sure how that’s proving any point besides self-sustainability.
the cac mamba
Banned
do you think america should take everyone who shows up at the doorstep, in perpetuity? looking at the cost of living issues in places like california and NY where they tend to end up?
Immigrants turned nativists 
ExodusNirvana
Change is inevitable...
In a land that doesn't/never belonged to them...but to the people they committed genocide on and now marginalize to a few states in the midwest where they run oil pipelines throughImmigrants turned nativists
On one hand man were humans.
On the other hand, this country already has so many poor/poverty stricken people and a shyt ton of homeless people. Maybe we should work on helping the people here first? I see the bad and good.
On the other hand, this country already has so many poor/poverty stricken people and a shyt ton of homeless people. Maybe we should work on helping the people here first? I see the bad and good.
Is that really the best argument you can make? You're reduced to the absolute extreme?
"You want to reduce the prison population? So what, just let them all out?"
"You want to raise taxes on the rich? To what, 100%?"
That literally the wealthiest country in the history of the world still has large numbers of impoverished people and then leverages their situation to avoid helping even more desperate people (still without actually doing anything for their own poor, of course) pretty much sums up the whole thing.
Invariably, the folk helping out citizens and helping out immigrants are the same damn people.
Last edited:
