Boycott CA and all those that boycott US laws and interests

Post Reply New Topic

Clarence Dupnik has noted that minor offences will be used as pretexts - tail lights defunct and the mix. The truck-driver case shows that the law is already being egregiously applied.

If they are here illegally, that status should trump and they should be deported into legal custody elsewhere. The state should not continue to bear the weight. There are ways to achieve parallels to the goals outlined by others without being bigoted and offensive.


M.

How How can litigation for not following the law not ensure a witch hunt here? The law's ambiguity leaves it open to abusive and draconian ends.

It's not draconian to people who are here illegally! FFS they're not legally part of the system to make it draconian in the first place. What in the world is wrong with you people?!

As far as I'm concerned anyone who enters the US illegally is no less different than the a-hole that cuts in line at the grocery store, or the d-bag that cut in front of you at the theme park ride. Plus it's a total d-move on those actually trying to enter the U.S. legally.

We had all better just buy Mexican rather than Californian fruits and vegetables.

It's draconian because the reasonable suspicion for who is there "illegally" is left completely undefined and will likely (scratch that, has) been used on classist and racist grounds.

It amounts to a de facto pass law for working class Mexican-born (or looking) Arizonans.

you make a great point.
a better option then would be to get these people documented & into the system so that we can start taxing them like everyone else.

Interestingly enough, illegal immigrants already pay some taxes.

[
Be careful what you wish for, folks.[/quote]you make a great point.
a better option then would be to get these people documented & into the system so that we can start taxing them like everyone else.[/quote]

master pendant
You want foreign felons to be allowed to stay in USA and commit more crimes? Why?
When they displace you from a job I know you will change your tune. Do you have a current job?



And they dont pay taxes. At the wages they work no taxes are due. In fact with child credit, they get money back.
And if they run a business, they also dont pay any taxes because they just dont report any income, or have any licence etc.

I will also remind you of the BILLIONS these illegals cost USA.

expain to me how this woman contributes to USA.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/ ... rPromoArea

After 15 years she does not know english
With low wage no insurance jobs, guess who payed for the birth of 10 kids. Guess who pays for their HC now.
With their low wages, they also qualify for SNAP to feed those 10 kids.

Look out CO! Here comes another foreign budget buster!

Deep impact topic

Kyle Kester, the Quintana family's landlord, seemed to like having the "illegals" in Arizona.

well, some taxes are inevitable if you live in a place, if they didn't pay some, it'd prolly call attention to them .

i meant like the full range of taxes

You're still assuming that this is a zero-sum game, i.e. that every job that is vacated by an undocument alien is going to remain in place to be filled by a legal resident. That is not, in fact, the case. The economic activity generated by undocumented aliens disappears when they leave, which means, inevitably, that there are fewer dollars in the economy with which to create and maintain jobs. Take $172 billion or more out of the economy, and there will, inevitably, be reductions in employment.



Actually, any alien subject to deductions at source does pay taxes. Any alien who purchases goods and services in a jurisdiction with consumption taxes also pays taxes (another reason that consumption tax is preferable to income tax--but that's an argument for another thread). With a median household income of $36,000 and family size of 2.3, you are looking at a tax hit for the majority of undocumented alien's households.



You are only looking at one side of the equation. Yes, undocumented aliens receive benefits from all levels of government. But that must be balanced against the tax revenue that they contribute directly (through payroll and consumption taxes), and indirectly (through economic contribution to other taxpayers' profits).

The simple fact of the matter is that from a fiscal perspective, Governments at all three levels are better off with those 11 to 20 million people in the country, than out of it. I suggest to you that the rational public policy approach is to find a way to normalize these peoples' status, so that their economic contribution can be maintained. That can even provide you a means to separate the productive, undocumented population from the rest.

They had jobs. Just because people have jobs that White people don't want doesn't mean that they aren't contributing to the nation.

They paid rent.

They gave us 10 native-born American citizens. Very few White people are doing that, unless they are Mormons.

And, if she can't speak English, so what? English wasn't necessary for the work that she was doing anyway.

Well I guess the LA boycott isn't working out too well for them. lol

Things work both ways.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... k-boycott/

lol ya, Arizona also supplies a lot of their water. I have a feeling this "boycott" is going to go by the wayside fast.

Why would you even need to boycott CA? It's already a bankrupt, crime-ridden rathole, so you couldn't make it much worse. They can barely support their population anyway, especially since they've tried to make Oregon divert the Columbia River to them and have us pay for it.