illegal gets welfare benefits for the past 20 years.

If a person pays the tax they should be eligible for the benefits.

I know little of "Progressive/OWS" propaganda but do know one simple fact.

If employers provided enough compensation in wages and benefits to their employees then there would be no necessity for government welfare programs.

I know another simple fact.

An employer providing enough compenstation in wages and benefits to provide for the employee's basic necessities in no way hinders their ability to operate a profitable enterprise.

 

The ignorance reflected is overwhelming that it's almost impossible to respond to.

First I would suggest reading about the causes of homelessness.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/hcauses.htm

From a personal perspective as a Vietnam Veteran I've been deeply concerned by the homelessness of combat veterans suffering from PTSD due to the endless wars the United States involves itself in. The statistics related to combat veterans that end up being homeless are shocking as are the suicide rates when compared to the medial statistics for both. I was even homeless at one time soon after returning from war although it was short lived as I had friends that could afford to take me in and provide assistance to me. Not everyone has that support, or the support of charities, especially in poor communities. In my entire lifetime I've actually met just one person that chose to be homeless. He was an actual "hobo" and enjoyed the life but there are few of those around.

As my previous posts have indicated I don't believe that society should be responsible for the vast majority of those living in poverty because they are working people. From my perspective it should be their employers that are profiting from their labor that should be responsible. As I've noted an employer can be responsible by providing enough in compensation in wages and benefits so that their employee doesn't require outside assistance just to survive and that employer can still make a reasonable profit. In fact, as Henry Ford proved, paying higher wages actually benefits the enterprise.

The proposition that all a person needs are food, shelter, and clothing is not an uncommon belief but it leaves out other necessities like clothing (clothes only last so long) and medical services (I know the Republican proposal on healthcare - "Don't get sick and if you do get sick then die quickly").

Just in addressing the necessity for food becoming informed would be advised.

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx

http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/

Private charities do help, and I've been a long time supporter of Northwest Harvest that is the primary food bank in WA where I live, but they don't even scratch the surface when it comes to meeting the needs of those that don't have enough to eat. In addition to all of the private food banks in America today SNAP provided an additional $80 billion in food assistance and even that isn't enough.

And no, not even college students live on Top Ramen because it doesn't have enough nutrients to survive on. They will resort to eating it sometimes because it's cheap but it does not provide a sustainable diet.

 

That '12 million' number isn't accurate any more. That '11 to 12 million' number first came out decades ago. It's more like 20 to 30 million these days. Now back to the regular programmed responses on the topic of criminal illegal aliens so beloved by both parties.

 

I do work for local charities and food banks as well, and the need is dire. We're in a major Depression here in the U.S., and the denial of that fact by the media and both the Democrats and Republicans is nothing less than criminal.

 

I don't give credit to President Obama on many things but when it comes to addressing criminal illegal aliens and border enforcement then he deserves a lot of credit because he's been the most proactive president I'm aware of in addressing the problem.

http://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/

His enforcement is far superior to his predecessor's (roughly twice the deportation numbers and far fewer illegal border crossings) and he is focusing on the right people for deportation (criminal aliens) using the limited resources at his disposal. This is one area of government that even the extremist right-wing Republicans should be applauding the President's actions.

I don't even support any immigration restrictions (except for those coming here for nefarious criminal purposes) and yet when it comes to "law enforcement" related to our immigration laws President Obama has an outstanding record compared to other presidents.

 

I believe that those of us actively involved in private charities are the most aware of the problem and the fact that the private charities don't even come close to meeting the needs of the people. We all wish they did but we only scratch the surface when it comes to providing the assistance necessary. We help but we know we fall far short of providing for the need. At best we cover those that are in need but where they are excluded from government assistance. We, to a small degree, catch some of the over-flow of those that really do require assistance and that alone is worth the time, effort, and financial donations we make.

 

Deporting a few illegals won't address the problem, and is more of a PR tactic, really; they'll just come back. When he gets around to enforcing the laws and prosecuting and jailing their employers, that will have real results.

Given the scope of the problem, deporting around twice as many doesn't mean much in real terms when his predecessor deported hardly any relative to the numbers of illegals here.

 

A credit isn't a benefit.

And yet you spout it as though you wrote it just for them; EXAMPLE

Another EXAMPLE:

 

Accept when even he will tell you his numbers are deceptive.

Hey, Kool-Aid!

 

The social programs that conservatives hate so much were only implemented because charities could not handle the need.

 

If employers provided enough compensation in wages and benefits to their employees then there would be no necessity for government welfare programs.

An employer providing enough compenstation in wages and benefits to provide for the employee's basic necessities in no way hinders their ability to operate a profitable enterprise.

Those are not OWS propaganda. That is common sense to most taxpayers.

 

A job is only worth so much, it is up to the employee to live within their means, its not the responsibility of the employer to buy them that big screen tv they want, or the newest smart phone, or the newest game console, or the newest car, etc.

THAT is common sense to most people.

 

Someone is only looking at demonizing the other to bolster their own ignorance and intellectual disability.

 

That is absolutely correct.

Today the "conservatives" want to reduce welfare spending but ignore the fact that the welfare spending is nothing but a small attempt to mitigate the effects of poverty. To reduce government welfare spending all we need to do is to reduce poverty and the necessity to mitigate it's effects are diminished reducing the cost of government welfare programs. The "spending" is the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.

The greatest mistake by our government historically is that it addresses the symptoms as opposed to the problems. Welfare assistance is like giving a pain killer to a person with a brain tumor. It reduces the pain but does not cure the tumor. We can cut off the pain killers and all that does is force the person to live in pain or we can "cure" the brain tumor which eliminates the need for the pain killer.

Republicans advocate causing the person to suffer by cutting off the "pain killer" when it comes to government welfare assistance.

 

This is a non sequitor response as we're not addressing luxuries such as big screen TV;s, smart phones, the newest game consoles, or even owning a car (which is a luxury in all but few cases). We're addressing basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, energy, health care services, ect. that a person must pay for just to survive.

I will not put a "number" on that as it varies by person and circumstance (e.g. a young person maybe able to share an apartment with others to reduce the cost of shelter but that may not be an option for a married couple of a woman with a child) but there is a point that below which each person cannot survive. That establishes the "minimum" in necessary compensation (wages and benefits) that the labor of the person is worth.

All employers can afford to provide for the necessary conpensation (wages and benefits) required by their employee and still realize a profit based upon a viable business model. This does not include compensation for "luxuries" of the person (some of which were mentioned) but just the necessities of life.

As I've noted I don't set a "number" on this but our elected representatives have and that number is established by the criteria for "welfare benefits" provided for by the government. If the government has to subsidize the enterprise by providing additional assistance to their employee then the enterprise is failing to meet the basic necessities of the employee with the compensation (wages and benefits combined).

It is "common sense" to understand that if a person is working full time and still requires government assistance for the basic necessities to survive then the employer is not providing enough compensation in wages and benefits to their employees.

There is, and always has been, a "minimum" compensation level and that is what is required for the person providing labor to survive. Even under slavery the slave owner was responsible for providing the basic necessities of life for the slave. Hell, we even have animal cruelty laws that prohibit the owner of an animal from not ensuring the animal has enough to eat to survive on.

Should an employee be treated worse than a cow, dog, cat, horse or even a slave by the employer when the employer doesn't provide them with enough compensation to even survive?

 

OK

It varies by location as well. NY City isn't going to be the same as North Platt Nebraska.

The state sets that number with the states minimum wage to which the employer must pay at least that.

If the employer is paying the state minimum wage or higher, that dismisses your inept claim. The govt doesn't "subsidize" the enterprise, the govt may subsidize the worker directly.

The state sets that minimum level, its called minimum wage, every state has it.

So far, your batting a zero.

 

Only based on both your inept understandings of what a conservative wants.

NO, theft is the issue, those that don't really need it, using it and taking from those that really do and costing everybody at the same time.

Thank you Progressives!
What does this even mean? We can cut off the pain killers and all that does is force the person to live in pain or we can "cure" the brain tumor which eliminates the need for the pain killer.

NO, Republicans want the waste taken out, those that don't need it shouldn't be receiving it, they want less bureaucracy in it. Do you know what it costs to give $1 dollar to a person in need through the govt?

 

Yes, the basic necessities of the worker are also dependent upon where they live as well as personal circumstances.

Starting with the last statement first.

Other than that I will generally agree with the position that the government (state/federal) has a choice of either requiring the enterprise to fully fund the basic necessities of the worker based upon a minimum wage, or partially require the or not require the enterprise to fully fund the basic necessities of the worker by providing subsidies (welfare assistance) to the worker.

Ultimately this comes down to either requiring the enterprise to fully fund the necessary expenditures of the employee based upon a minimum wage rate (law) or to subsidize the enterprise by subsidizing to the enterprise that under-compensates the employee by providing welfare assistance directly to the employee. From an objective mathmatical perspective it works out as follows:

Higher minimum wages = Lower welfare assistance costs or no welfare assistance costs
Lower minimum wages = Higher welfare assistance costs

This is a basic proposition in that it established that either the employer carries the costs to fund the basic necessities of the worker or the taxpayers are required to provide for the underpayments by the enterprise with welfare assistance to ensure the basic necessities of the worker are met. That's why the following equation I provided actually is accurate.

Individual Welfare = Corporate Welfare

This is where the "Republican" arguments fail because they cannot insist on lower minimum wages and lower welfare spending at the same time as that is illogical because the basic necessities of the person are a "constant" based upon the factors noted of location and individual circumstances as pointed out in the first statement above.

This thread is about "illegal" immigrants so it should be noted that they are "people" just like the rest of us and they also have the same fundatmental basic necessities that must be met. They have to be able to eat, to have shelter, clothing, energy, and medical services just like every other person living in the United States. There is no difference between "citizens" and "immigrants" (either legal or undocumented) when it comes to the fact that we are all "persons" and have a requirement that our basic necessities be met preferrable by employment where the employer provides enough compensation so that outside assistance is not required.

What annoys me is the proposition that some have that another individual is not equal as a person because they're not a citizen or because they happen to be living and working in the country without "papers" (which reeks of government tyranny such as we've seen historically in other nations such as Nazi Germany and the former USSR). A "citizen" is neither more or less of a "person" than the "illegal immigrant" living in the United States and Congress cannot legislate away the "personhood" of the individual for any reason.

 

As many on this forum are aware I'm a card carrying Libertarian and my political ideology is based upon our Inalienable Rights as a Person and our Freedom to Exercise those Inalienable Rights to the maximum extent pragmatically possible. What I find sad is that in a nation where the express purpose of government is to protect our Inalienable Rights that so few Americans take the time to know and understand them.

Thomas Jefferson, generally cited as one of the foremost scholars in understanding the "natural" or "inalienable" rights of the person, put forward the following proposition:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/6152-your-daily-jefferson

"Expatriation" is the act of leaving the country of one's birth (i.e. natural born citizenship based upon jus soli) and immigrating to another country. It is the Right to Immigrate of the Person from their native country to any other country and Jefferson proposed that the "person" may do it "by any effectual and unequivocal act" which is exactly what the "illegal" immigrant to the United States is doing. They are exercising their Inalienable Rights as a Person by coming to the United States to engage in peaceful pursuits such as employment and in doing so they are not infringing upon any of our Inalienable Rights or our Freedom to Exercise those Inalienable Rights.

This is where the logic of those that advocate immigration restrictions fail as they are advocating the violation of the Inalienable Right to Immigrate (expatriation) of the Person while the very basis for our government it to protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Without thought they are rationalizing and advocating the tyranny of government that is exemplified by government violating the Inalienable Rights of the Person. They are, without thought or reason, opposing that very precious political ideology upon which America was founded that made the United States a unique and special country in the world of nations.

This is sad for me as an American because instead of bringing other nations up to meet the ideology we established for ourselves as a nation we're instead lowering ourselves to the standards of those nations not dedicated to the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

 

And meanwhile we can shoot the other 6 already there in the head

Why not just require her to get an abortion? Isn't that Nazi enough for you. We do lock up the fathers, if we can find them, and continued welfare is contingent on the mother disclosing what she knows of him, though why and how she should know any more than the entire US government is beyond me. You want to catch all the Deadbeat Dads?. Make it a one year mandatory jail sentence if you pay someone any money for anything without the proper paperwork and put a few undercover cops into the crowds that hang around outside employment offices. Of course half the small business owners would have to be locked up but it might be worth just so they can see how their major work force generally lives

Like I said, these guys yearn for reminders of past glory in Der Vaterland

Oh, hell no, we can't do that. That doesn't involve forced sterilization and deporting US citizens. (Just how we can do that even in a diplomatic sense is problematic. These kids weren't born in Mexico and have never been there, why should Mexico accept them?)

Yep, There you have it, Conservatives, staunch defenders of the Constitution

I am against forced sterilization, unless it ups my taxes by a penny or so, then I'm all for it.

Some may call this a Straw Man and some thread derailement but I'm just putting it forward as a frightening thought. Most conservative opinions I see on here hint at wholesale disenfranchisement.

Right, nothing is better for a 70 year old with a heart condition than a good day picking cotton. Didn't we settle the issue of slavery back in 1865?

Since you are so knowledgeable of how big the problem "really" is, it should be easy to provide us with a few links to actual cases you're aware of. We await (along with the crickets).

Actually, digging latrines is fairly skilled labor, it's not just a hole, it has to be located correctly and dug the right way. Given the level I've seen of most conservative "thought" I don't trust them to handle (*)(*)(*)(*) properly.

 

The govt doesn't have any right to require an enterprise to fully fund the basic necessities of the worker. What you are claiming goes against your Libertarian ideology.

The govt doesn't have the right to require an enterprise to fund anything other than to pay taxes. So what the govt did was prohibit employers from hiring persons for less than what they feel the job is worth, they didn't do this until 1938.

Mathematically incorrect assumption, leaving out to many variables such as inflation, etc.

The only necessities are food, water, and shelter, anything more than that is a luxury. Welfare is based on the number of dependents in a household.

Intellectual dishonesty must be the norm for you. What Republicans want is better ability to determine who needs what and those that are taking advantage of the welfare to be removed from it. Welfare si nothing more than a hand up, it shouldn't be relied upon as a way to live.

Or the fact that the person live within their means.

You're annoyed by your own annoyance based on you wanting to be annoyed by something. Fix your intellectual dishonesty and you might find your annoyance eradicated. Its not the individual himself, it is the status of the person. Yes, some have more rights than others while in the US, its written into our USC, it has been the way of life for more than a millenia throughout the world.

 

Yet your comments lean more towards a Progressive then a Libertarian.

The right of expatriation doesn't mean what you are attempting to claim. Their is no inherent right to immigrate by anybody, there is only an inherent right to leave or enter ones own country. What Jefferson is discussing is the fact that if someone is allowed to enter into another country, that person has the right to choose to renounce allegiance to ones own homeland. If that country has no laws in regards to doing such, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration. This is not what illegals are doing, since in the US there are laws to do such, they fail to follow them.

This is where the ignorance of those that don't comprehend the laws or choose to be intellectually dishonest for their own personal reasons to feel good about themselves and denigrate others for not lying or believing the ineptness that they themselves do.

Not even the UDHR states that a person has an inherent right to immigrate. The UDHR states what Jefferson does. From the UDHR

Your sad based on your own ignorance of reality, you holding others to your ineptness and decrying something that is fallacious is your own downfall.

You should do more research into what "inalienable rights" are and to whom they are. As to you taking Jefferson out of context and attributing to his quote your mis-understandings, you only have yourself to blame.

 

Ever hear of HIPAA laws? Oh wait, you're one of those 'uneducated' ones? Forget I even mentioned it.

Go troll Huffington Post with the rest of the ignorant's.

 

Those states then abide by Federal Minimum wage, which they, each state, deemed being enough to meet the basic needs of the employee within that state.

The very least you can do is use the entirety of the paragraph you are using.

I highlighted the last 2 sentences for a basic understanding of the Federal poverty level, which is set at $7 per hour for a household of 2. That equates to $3.50 per hour per person.

 

The Inalienable Rights of the Person are not established by statutory law or by government. Some governments and statutory laws acknowledge and protect our Inalienable Rights while often those same governments disparage and violate or allow the violations of our Inalienable Rights. Inalienable Rights are determined to exist by application of the following simple criteria which has absolutely nothing to do with government.

An Inalienable (natural) Right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon any other person, which does not violate the Inalienable Rights of another person, nor does it impose any involuntaty obligation upon another person.

This simply criteria is applied in any case when addressing of "natural" or "inalienable" rights of the person.

For example there has been much discussion on the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constitution. "Natural Born Citizen" refers to the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Citizenship of the Person" so the above criteria is applied. As the 14th Amendment establishes any person (paraphrased) "born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction (legal authority) thereof is a citizen of the United States and the State where they were born." As protected by the 14th Amendment "natural born citizenship" is referred to by the Latin phrase "Jus Soli" (i.e. Right of Soil) because it established the Right of the Person, based solely upon the Person (i.e. where they are physically born), it is not dependenty upon any other person (e.g. the parents), it doesn't violate the rights of any other person, nor does it impose any involuntary obligation upon another person.

This Inalienable Right of US Citizenship (i.e. those born in one of the States) doesn't extend to US territories as those territories may become independent nations in which case the person born in the territory, that is a "natural born citizen" of the territory, would become a natural born citizen of the new nation. If that territory eventually becomes a State in the United States then those that are natural born citizens of that territory would become a citizen of the United States.

The Inalienable Right of Citizenship (i.e. natural born citizenship) cannot be extended to those born in a foreign nation based upon their parents citizenship because the Inalienable Right of the Person cannot be dependent upon another person such as the parent(s). Citizenship based upon the parents is referred to by the Latin phrase Jus Sanguinis (i.e. Right of Blood) but it isn't actually an Inalienable Right as it is dependent upon another person (i.e. the parent(s) of the child) and is granted by statutory law. That doesn't imply that statutory law can't grant citizenship, and our statutory laws do grant US citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis, but that is not "natural born citizenhship" which refers to the Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person. Citizenship granted based upon Jus Sanguinis is a "Privilege" granted by statutory law and not an Inalienable Right of the Person.

With this fundamental understanding we can address whether the Right of Expatriation (immigration) is an Inalienable Right of the Person or is it a "privilage" granted by government under statutory law? The ability to move from one place to another freely is based upon the acknowledged Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person (Ref. Declaration of Independence). The "Right of Liberty" is inherent in the person, it is not dependent upon any other person, it does not infringed upon the Rights of another Person, nor does it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person. It is an Inalienable Right.

The Inalienable Right of Liberty is not constrained by political bounderies that are arbitrary and established by government under "statutory laws" of government. Any law that prohibits a person from movement from one place to another place (e.g. from one city to another, one state to another, or one country to another) is a violation of their Inalienable Right of Liberty in the pure sense of the word.

Of course a people cannot coexist without any limitations upon their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Rights as a Person in any society. We do, and justifiable so, impose certain limitations upon the person's Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Rights but such limitations are logically limited to cases where protections of the Inalienable Rights of other Persons in society justify that limitation. For example we incarcerate the criminal, infringing upon their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Liberty, because they have demonstrated that they will violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person if allowed into society.

The problem with our immigration laws that prohibit a foreigner from coming to the United States to work and provide for themselves and their families is that they are not based upon protections of anyone else's Inalienable Rights. They cannot be supported based upon the argument of a pragmatic necessity for the protection of our Inalienable Rights.

The argument that the founders of America did not support the Right of the Person to immigrate is contradicted by many of their statements. In fact the US Constitution actually prohibited any restrictions on immigration by Congress for the first 20 years of the United States:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/article.html

Following is an exceptional statement of facts related to the beliefs of the Founders when it came to immigration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/founding-fathers-on-immigration_b_1898163.html

In closing I would ask others to ponder our National Character as expressed on the Stature of Liberty.

It is within these words that our national character was revealed when it comes to immigration. It wasn't about allowing the wealthy elitists being able to "purchase" citizenship (which our immigration laws basically allow today) or about bringing the intellectual elite (that Republicans advocate today) but instead it was about welcoming the poor, the homeless, the huddle masses and "wretched refuse" from other nations that would come here seeking to breath freedom

Sadly our laws today seek to deny these very people (the poor, the homeless, the huddle masses, and the wretched refuse seeking freedom) that we should be welcoming with open arms from immigrating to the United States. We have abondoned our belief in the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person and the National Character of America with our immigration laws.