Southern Baptists, Immigration, and doing the right thing

Paul,

Economist MIlton Friedman answered your greed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

The issue is when we begin choosing losers and winners, be make room for corruption. Your solution to dividing it up among many does not help either. Rather, it become a means of greater political clout and corruption becomes worse, not better.

 

Don,

My previous posts have been clear. I do not want people who will harm America to cross the borders. So there should be some border control. However, I don't want anyone else excluded. This would be a huge change in border policy.

 

That is up to the businesses to decide on who to hire and not hire. However, many immigrants with no skills are performing roles on farmland, in manufacturing plants, etc. Most of these are entry level positions. When in Seminary, for a short time, I worked with a Hispanic group of people who did industrial roofing.

No, the Government was not supporting his family. I would not want you to support his family unless through charity. Yet, this man came to our church, was very intelligent, but was not here for a handout. As for our welfare situation, that is another topic for another day. Yet, on the basis of these facts, would you not agree that the system was immoral?

He gave up because his wife could not join him. It is difficult to live without your family as they are in another country, and your wife is raising kids on her own. He had one more year remaining. I may be wrong about having completed two years, I know he completed a year, he may have left into the second year of his three year program.

BTW, you are making arguments against my scenario that I never made. I never asked you nor told you to support him and you are now arguing the immorality of the welfare state, not the issue we originally addressed, that is the immorality of the immigration laws. This is clearly a red herring.

Yet, your argument does not carry weight, the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) noted the following:

"Most immigrant families have a positive net fiscal impact on the U.S., adding $88,000 more in tax revenues than they consume in services;"

and again:

"Social Security payroll taxes paid by improperly identified (undocumented) workers have led to a $463 billion funding surplus"

Thus, they are paying their own way and are propping up our social welfare state, not us propping up them. Thus, your red herring is just that, a red herring and an assumption that has a stereotype that is inaccurate.

There has been no rebuttals. There have been red herrings thrown at it, but no rebuttals therefore, by debate rules, it is the winning argument.

Your point?

How so? Saying it is a poor analogy does not make it a poor analogy.

You are wrong, it is based upon socio-economic levels. You are more likely to make it into the United States if you have more means than if you do not.

My cousin married a woman who is not from this country. He had to marry her out of country because our country would not allow her into the States. Once they got married, it took several years to get her into the United States, a huge fight because she had no trade and was not rich. Their marriage was questioned and when legal proof was provided, they still did not allow her into the country. Years later, she finally was allowed. Had she been wealthy or had more means then she would have been allowed immediately.

I have been basing my statement on socio-economic conditions, not race or gender.

I think the quota system itself is immoral. However, according to the Immigration Policy Center, while we do take a very limited number of refugees the other two areas are family unification (which I have shown to be lacking) and jobs that help our economy (socio-economically beneficial). The latter is given a priority based upon economics and skills. In fact, the more money you have and are willing to invest in the United States, according to this Immigration Policy Center, the more likely you will be allowed in.

I am not sure if I have or not. Yet, I am a part of an organization that is for lightening immigration laws. My two Senators are on my side on this.

However, this does not answer the immorality of the laws themselves. You are turning the issue to me, not the issue. Thus this is a Red herring.

Another red herring question, but I am not Mexican, i am an American. I rarely if ever contacted a foreign country about their policies.

Red herring, see previous statements. They add to the economy according to the Heritage Foundation.

Red herring, it does not address the immorality of the law itself and is also based upon wrong facts.

Red Herrring, does not address the issue of the law itself.

Again, red herring. The issue is the immigration laws, not these other laws. As an economist I am against government subsidies of all education, including Americans. However, this is a red herring.

 

I am referring to criminal acts.

 

John,

My premise is that our current immigration laws are immoral because they put a price tag on humans. No one has offered a rebuttal.

Secondly, I quoted statistics in another post from the Heritage Foundation showing that immigrants and illegal immigrants put more money into our system than they use. Yet, your post is off topic and a straw man argument, because they use resources does not mean that our immigration policy is moral or immoral.

 

Again, this is a red herring. These statistics does not show that our immigration policy is moral. As well, some of the statistics are misleading, but I will address some of those later. Yet, you are basing a moral argument on the cost of people. This is exactly what I am attacking. We judge the net worth of people merely on the basis of their net worth to us. That is highly immoral. You believe you are justified because finances=morality. I disagree. Morality is not based upon finances otherwise those who cheat to become rich are more moral than others. I reject that premise.

Again, I reject the premise as the premise seems to be argued that finances are the basis of morality. Yet, as I noted before, immigrants, legal and illegal, input more into the economy than they take out. I cited the Heritage Foundation's report. Thus, there can be a huge increase in costs, but they contribute more. As well, I have noted several times, that in cases where we have a poor or immoral system is not an argument for the immorality of our immigration policy. Arguing such is a straw man argument.

Again, because we have a broken system does not mean our immoral immigration policy is justified.

Again, this is a straw man argument. It does not mean our immigration policy is justified and it makes economics the center of morality, the premise of which I believe is immoral.

 

Man,

Boy, you are hot. Have I used straw man and red herring inappropriately? If so, then I will recant them. However, if I use them properly then I have shown the fallacy in your argument. So, please, show me how I am wrong in the places I cited the red herring, straw man, or other fallacies I may have cited. If not, I believe they are correct and rightly addressed fallacies. Proper argumentation must have logic and where a fallacy occurs, it is proper to note it so that people are not infuenced by the argument being advanced and can see the poor reasoning. If the person citing the logical fallacy is wrong, it is up to the other side to show how it was not a logical fallacy. Thus, your "you throw straw man and red herring around to (sic) easy. Means you have no argument." is also a fallacy at Tu Quoque, or "you too" argument.

My standard of the basis of our immigration policy is that we base our policy upon a humanistic worth of people, not following that people are worth something because we were created in God's image, and should not be based upon economics as our current policy is. We should be no respector of persons. All of these are Biblical principles. I have said this to you a number of times. I hope you are reading my points instead of just hurling vast statements.

 

Again, I cite the Heritage Foundation's literature. They are both conservative and their statistics are more up to date. As well, you are only figuring into the scheme income and payroll taxes. This is in error as you know because there is a vast amount of other taxes and residuals to taxes that are not considered. If you take in what I use in services and what I pay in payroll taxes, I too would be underwater. However, if you take into account all the other taxes and other additions I put into the economy, I contribute more. Thus, the problem with most surveys is that they do not take into account all these other factors.

Yet, you beg the question. Should we base morality on economics? You seem to want to avoid this question. Is something immoral because based purely on economics?

 

Another fallacy. This is supposed to be a rational discussion, I am surprised you have yet to engage rationally into this discussion.

Cite chapter and verse where they shouldn't.

I am basing it upon Principles. I am using the argument very similar to the Civil War argument against slavery. The South's argument was that slavery was allowed in the Bible and should be allowed in their day. They were able to cite Chapter and verse for their arguments, but there was a problem.

The main problem is that they refused to see the problem of American Slavery despite arguments for the humanity of man, the calls that slaves were human and created in God's image. My argument was based upon their argument, with almost no alteration. Thus, when you say my argument did not prove the point, you were arguing against theological arguments of the Civil War and called them a non-argument. Thus, I was happy for you to do so, as both history and theology have proven you wrong.