How's that Constitution thing working out for you?

Amarante

Fri, Dec 02 2016, 11:49 am

gold21 wrote:

The first amendment is concerning you, the same way the second amendment concerns Republicans I guess. Conservatives have been championing the second amendment for years. (Personally, I think there should be some leeway for changes with regards to the second amendment, we should update our gun laws, I liked what Obama has had to say on this issue. But changing an amendment is changing an amendment.)

I am passionate about free speech but flag burning isn't something I could ever get behind. And then, let's define free speech. If I were to publicly say something offensive, like, "Hitler was right, Jews are vermin" should I be allowed to do so? So, no, I definitely don't think that flag burning should be punishable with prison time, but if there were a fine in place for that kind of behavior, I would support it.

Hate me for my opinions if you will, I'm entitled to them. Right? Tongue Out

I am don't understand the point you are making.

By "not getting behind", does that mean that you want to ban symbolic speech such as flag burning?

First amendment rights are generally protected BECAUSE people with unpopular beliefs or beliefs that are not majority were prosecuted and then had to fight a legal battle so that the rights were protected.

There is almost no speech that isn't protected - including symbolic speech - so long as it doesn't rise to creating a CLEAR AND IMMINENT IMMEDIATE DANGER. The cliched paraphrase of Schenck v US had the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater which is what is denominated as "pure speech" but is NOT protected since people could be hurt or killed in a stampede to exit.

Much of First Amendment law involves people I find distasteful - Nazi's marching in Skokie whose rights ironically were protected by Jewish lawyers for example.

A fine or prison doesn't matter. It is government action that suppresses speech that is at issue and so a fine is not permissible.

Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to say Jews are vermin in public or print such a statement? Because under that analysis much of what I read on imamother should be banned on the basis of being hateful speech towards Muslims.

I am not getting into the issue of this being a private forum. As Marina has to point out continually Very Happy

Yael has the right to ban anything or anyone she wants and can be as unreasonable as she chooses. She can be completely arbitrary and base it on the amother color if she wanted. However, the government cannot ban statements so it would be unconstitutional for the government to do what Yael can do - I.e. the government cannot ban speech on any forum however hateful it might be to an individual.

gold21

Fri, Dec 02 2016, 12:37 pm

Amarante wrote:

Point 1. Some champion unlimited free speech while others champion gun rights. Now we can all understand each other.

Point 2: Yes, I would be ok if flag-burning were made punishable by law. No prison time, no loss of citizenship, but Im ok with a fine.

Amarante

Fri, Dec 02 2016, 12:47 pm

gold21 wrote:

I still don't understand your point.

The right to bear arms is "action" and not speech and under any reasonable interpretation of Constitutional law, there can exist a "compelling justification" to regulate the sale of guns - I.e. require background checks or whatever.

This is the same analysis as would be used to adjudicate First Amendment claims.

There is no physical threat to anyone if a flag is burned unless you are using some kind of fire safety law that is applicable to anything being burned. What is the justification for the fine except to punish people and make them not exercise their constitutional right to burn a flag. And once you start fining flag burning because YOU - gold21 have deemed it to be personally offensive - why should I not have the right to have speech that I find personally offensive fined.

The point of the First Amendment is that it protects ALL speech - not just speech YOU don't happen to find offensive. Any government action that burdens speech is not constitutional - a fine, prison term or a ban - so long as government action is involved and the issue is speech (and not conduct that endangers people).

gold21

Fri, Dec 02 2016, 12:53 pm

Amarante wrote:

I'm not looking for you to agree with me...

I figured I'd toss in my opinion, for what it's worth.

1. People are just as anxious about limiting the Second Amendment as you are about limiting the First Amendment.

2. I do think that drawing a swastika right outside a synagogue should be punishable by law.

Amarante

Fri, Dec 02 2016, 12:59 pm

gold21 wrote:

It's nit a question of agreeing.

What you are espousing is not constitutional and I am trying to point out exactly how that argument is made and why it is nit analogous to controlling behavior related to gun ownership.

I am just not seeing any analogy.

Behavior is always judged by different standards even when it comes to religion. You can believe anything you want but under certain circumstances, the government might have a compelling reason to control religion us behavior but it would have to be reviewed with the so-called strict scrutiny criteria.

There is a way in which constitutional actions are reviewed and it is nit on the basis of whether an individual might find it to be offensiv which is what you are basing a fine on.

gold21

Fri, Dec 02 2016, 1:04 pm

Amarante wrote:

Why don't u see an analogy?

33055

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 9:13 pm

marina wrote:

Further, you are not considering the less-tangible benefits of illegal immigrants and low wage earners in general. How do you think America's economy would be affected if tomorrow, the illegals would all just suddenly disappear? Most research I've done says it won't be pretty.

It is tough to quantify the less-tangible benefits which is why we have been sticking to the economy.

Perhaps if all the illegal suddenly disappeared, then we might to have allow more legal workers to come into the country temporarily.

33055

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 9:33 pm

marina wrote:

1. I don't know that this has anything to do with liberals or conservatives. Did you read the WSJ article? It's not showing that Arizona's laws definitively benefited their economy. If you disagree with the WSJ, surely it's not because it is a liberal outlet.

Personally, most of the outrage that you've offered here relates to poverty, not to illegal status so I find that position less than convincing. I'm not attributing that to your conservative outlook, though.

2. We specifically allow schooling and medicaid because we don't want to live in a society where people are dying on the street and raising uneducated families. That's a deliberate choice we as a country made. It's not a way the illegals are siphoning off the system.

But again- it's a cost benefit analysis. Taking into account the sales tax, the income tax, the social security system ( which apparently would have ended in 2009 without illegals paying into the system?), taking into account the companies that benefit from illegals and the jobs that these wealthier companies can offer, etc etc, and then subtract how much they cost in school costs and medicaid. I have no idea if it's a net loss and if so, how much. I think that number is very murky and I haven't seen anything unbiased that shows a serious net loss for the country.

I can't read WSJ article; although, I would love to. Would you copy and paste it?

My "outrage" has to do with having the financial burden of sanctuary cities on the backs of the local governments. Spring Valley choosing not to support federal law is creating ugly situations locally. By not enforcing federal law, Spring Valley is a magnet for those that don't want to live where the law is enforced.

If vast qualities of poverty stricken citizens were migrating within the US and causing this kind of burden on me, I would be just as outraged. These illegal aliens are draining resources locally. If we as a society decide they are a good thing, then let the burden be evenly distributed. I don't like having the second highest county taxes. And I don't like having my local educational resources cut.

You would have to do your CB analysis with a lot of red ink because even the most pro-immigrant articles talks only about future benefit. Poor people drain the economy. We treat or poor citizens humanely. But we can't take care of everyone who commits fraud to get benefits.

BTW there isn't a chance that soc sec would have been allowed to end in 2009 - Not. A. Chance.

33055

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 9:39 pm

marina wrote:

Also I want to point out that illegal immigrants are poor and don't make a lot of money... because of their status. If we develop and implement laws that allow some of them to go to college and work in good professions instead of at minimum wage, the picture may look very different.

It's hard, in other words, to blame them for their poverty.

Yes, but who is going to pay for them to go to college? I thought the whole big argument is that they do the jobs that Americans don't want to do.

How can we pay for college for illegal immigrants when our own citizens have back breaking student loans? (I don't like that they already have free dental when citezens don't have free dental.) Also, these illegals will be taking jobs away from citizens. There are not enough jobs for college educated people already.

You do also realize that you will increase illegal immigration if you offer them college and good professions. That coefficient will be awfully high.

33055

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 9:48 pm

marina wrote:

I have a favorable outlook towards illegal immigrants and that's really what we are arguing about. I have a morally positive perspective because legal immigration is not easy at all. People imagine illegal aliens are just cutting the line because they're lazy or whatever, but in reality, it's just not feasible for many of them to immigrate legally.

There are quotas for every country, even for refugees and even for those who have families here. For some people there is literally no chance to ever come here legally. The cost of filling out the forms is more than they make in a year.

I emigrated as a child and I literally did nothing to be born into a family that had the resources and connections to live here legally. It was an accident, a fortunate fate. I could have easily been born into a family anywhere else on the planet where they have to sell their daughters on the street to make ends meet. And my family would have been stuck there.

I certainly do not blame the illegals for trying to come here and make a better life for themselves and their children. I would have done the same.

The truth is we are all here as an accident of fate. We aren't being marched off to camps or being killed by Isis.

My prospective is we must protect the resources we have and dole them out to those that we deem that we want to. There is way too much need in the world outside our boarders and if we average out what we have then we will be much worse off. There are billions of people suffering world wide, and our resources are finite. It is a zero sum game. We give, and then we don't have. We may only be slightly better than the worse now if we try to help everyone.

marina

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 9:54 pm

Squishy wrote:

They can borrow money from the federal gov which then makes a **** ton of profit off of them, like everyone else.

There is no evidence that illegals take jobs from citizens. This has been studied and reported on by neutral organizations. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/.....jobs/

I'm not suggesting that the answer to the illegal immigration problem is to welcome everyone here with open arms, free college, and high paying jobs. I don't have answers. I do think the problem is way overblown.

I'm just pointing out that your biggest problem with illegals seems to be that you don't like poor people. You sound like you sort of barely tolerate them. But illegal immigrants aren't able to move up the socioeconomicladder precisely because of existing laws, laws that you prefer be made harsher.

marina

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 10:04 pm

Squishy wrote:

I know. That's why I'm not an open-borders person. It's not practical. But I definitely think more creative thinking about the problem would lead to better solutions than fear mongering. There are states with more cows than people, for example. I don't know that adding more people to those places ( as opposed to CA, FL, TX) would harm the economy instead of benefit them.

33055

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 10:12 pm

marina wrote:

I actually like helping poor people directly on an individual basis. I have helped Haitians, Ladinos, and Yidden.

On a group basis, I feel US citizens should receive the resources to move up the ladder. There are still black inner city families stagnating after how many generations after Johnson's Great Society. We have problems to solve within our county first. We have problems within our own community which is not being educated to function as illiterate members of society.

My biggest problem, again, is paying for the sanctuary city in my backyard. This is a major problem because it is a drag on the educational resources in the local school district which has unique demographics separate and apart from the large first generation infant citizens and the illegal immigrants who attend the public school.

MagentaYenta

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 10:14 pm

The bracero program of 1942 to 1964 was a response to a labor shortage brought on by WW2. When it became evident the US didn't have sufficient POWS or Japanese internees to do field work the bracero program became the solution to a problem but it wasn't. Growers didn't keep up their end of the deal when it came to safe housing, savings accounts or minimal worker protections there were quitters who simply walked away. These individuals know as 'quits' became the parents and grandparents of many future US citizens. (Sound familiar?) The 'guest worker' programs of future decades were riddled by the same employer abuses, ergo more quitters, more legal citizens.

Contemporaneously states have sought to motivate illegal people to self deport after introducing extreme anti immigrant measures. AL most famously suffered when it presumed that white citizens on welfare would prefer to do field work rather than collect welfare. Ooops that didn't work. Millions in agricultural income were lost to the state.

I have no solution, but I want to introduce some history to the idea of limited entry for unskilled agricultural workers.

33055

Sat, Dec 03 2016, 10:23 pm

marina wrote:

How do you think our economy would be affected if tomorrow everyone who lived below 200% of federal poverty line disappeared?

The first thing is that Monsey traffic would improve. LOL

When you ask that question, it makes me think of the book "Left Behind". Did you read it? It had an interesting premise.

Obviously, we can't get rid of everyone below the federal poverty level. You can't disappear that many people without the economy being severely effected. Probably many defensive stocks like cigarettes, food companies that cater to poor people like Mac and cheese products, rental companies would tank and the effect would reverberate.

How about we just disappear a fraction of them? There is some number that would benefit the economy before constricting it.