Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't think illegals have the luxury of having "housewives" all that often.

I guess you don't live in California. Many women stay at home with the kids while the men of the household families go earn the money to pay the rent.

"A number"? What number? Remember, they're illegal, getting paid under the table - the minimum wage laws don't apply.
Who said anything about minimum wage laws right there. If they make 7.25 an hour or better, and many of them do, then they make more than 7.25 an hour.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 about 3.3 million people made at or below the Federal minimum wage. This number will not include most of the illegals, whose income is not reported in their taxes.

Right. That means it ignored anyone making 7.26 an hour to 10.09 an hour, which is a huge number that will all see increases.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
If Bush or Clinton had targeted Americans to be murdered without due process I would be just as critical of them. Bush and Obama are running neck and neck for the worst Presidents ever. Clinton I really liked.

Pardon me, but apparently you have a misunderstanding of "due process": all that that means is that a person is entitled to the legal proceedings the government has set forth in its judicial/legal frameworks.

In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, he got due process under current US law. As noted upthread, all 4 drone strikes were authorized by the secret courts set up during the Bush admin- by the laws passed in our Legislative branch- for handling the targeting terrorists, either for certain kinds of surveillance, capture, or termination.
 
Last edited:

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
In any war, collateral damage must happen. You either fight back and accept collateral damage, or you lose. Collateral damage is different from the direct intentional targeting of Americans or even foreign civilians.

It is not. It is just something people made up to not look like the bad guys and feel good. It is the same logic that operates for either side. No sides wants to see itself as the bad guy, so they try to justify their actions, but the the fact of the matter is that both side kill people.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, he got due process under current US law.

As I understand it, basically if you get yourself declared an "enemy combatant", then the kid gloves can come off.

There are a bunch of problems with current US law on this subject, for which there are actually some really simple fixes. "Secret court" is a major problem.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
As I understand it, basically if you get yourself declared an "enemy combatant", then the kid gloves can come off.

There are a bunch of problems with current US law on this subject, for which there are actually some really simple fixes. "Secret court" is a major problem.

Oh, I completely agree. It is every much against foundational principles of our country.

But I have just as big a problem with those who approve of the creation of a tool and then who cry foul when it is used as intended or in a way that was completely forseeable. Or of those who complain when we try to make those tools conform more to our broader legal system.

For example, many politicians on the Right were very publically pro-"enhanced interrogation techniques"...until Alan Dershowitz called for such techniques to be subject to a process including obtaining a "Torture Warrant", which would require people to sign their names to a document authorizing the use of those techniques. While sealed from the view of anyone without proper clearance, said warrants would still make individuals accountable for their actions if the right people made the right complaints.

That call for potential for legal scrutiny and accountability quieted a lot of saber rattling.
 
Last edited:

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
And let's not forget that WWII didn't start out as WWII. For a long time we just didn't give a crap about what the Nazis did because it didn't affect our isolationist society. Hell, Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year for 1938, only one year prior to the start of WWII. The fact is that most people in the U.S. still tend to forget that the rest of the world is even there (apart from a few major allies and rivals).

I'm not sure exactly where you are going with the Hitler as Time's Man of the Year in 1938. Keep in mind that Time's designation of someone as Man (now Person) of the Year isn't an accolade. It's a declaration of who was the biggest news driver of the year, for good or bad. Hitler certainly fit that bill in 1938. Unfortunately, since they declared Ayatollah Khomeini Person of the Year in 1979 and received backlash, Time has been more timid about their Person of the Year declarations - hence Rudy Giuliani in 2001 instead of Osama bin Laden despite how large bin Laden loomed in the news.
Moreover, selection of Hitler in 1938 suggests that we weren't entirely forgetting that the rest of the world was out there...
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I guess you don't live in California. Many women stay at home with the kids while the men of the household families go earn the money to pay the rent.

How many? That's the question. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough.

Who said anything about minimum wage laws right there. If they make 7.25 an hour or better, and many of them do, then they make more than 7.25 an hour.

You keep on asserting these things, but give no evidence. You are not an accepted authority. And *how many* get paid more is extremely relevant to your point.

My point was that the minimum wage law is not enforced for these people - it isn't like they can file a grievance about it. So, why would we expect a significant number of them to be paid above minimum wage?

Right. That means it ignored anyone making 7.26 an hour to 10.09 an hour, which is a huge number that will all see increases.

And *WHAT IS THE HUGE NUMBER*? You wave your hands around making claims, and you don't back them up. Why should anyone listen to you if you don't back up your assertions?

I did a quick search for how many people make under $10/hour, and the number I found was about 15 million. Took me about 30 seconds to find a CNN article. You're welcome.

When I went looking for the number of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce, the number I got was about 8 million. At least twice as many as you assert. You seem to have estimated that about a third of illegals were working, when the numbers say more like 70% or more of them are working.

Now, 8 is less than 15. But, it means that illegals make up about a third of this low-wage pool, and therefore their impact can't be ignored.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
The 8m number corresponds to what I have found as well. In a CNN piece citing the Cato Institute's 2011 testimony before the House Judiciary Sub-committee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement:

Removing the approximately 8 million unauthorized workers in the United States would not automatically create 8 million job openings for unemployed Americans, said Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, in his 2011 testimony before the House Judiciary Sub-committee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.

The reason, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is two-fold. For one, removing millions of undocumented workers from the economy would also remove millions of entrepreneurs, consumers and taxpayers. The economy would actually lose jobs. Second, native-born workers and immigrant workers tend to possess different skills that often complement one another.

According to Griswold, immigrants, regardless of status, fill the growing gap between expanding low-skilled jobs and the shrinking pool of native-born Americans who are willing to take such jobs. By facilitating the growth of such sectors as retail, agriculture, landscaping, restaurants, and hotels, low-skilled immigrants have enabled those sectors to expand, attract investment, and create middle-class jobs in management, design and engineering, bookkeeping, marketing and other areas that employ U.S. citizens.

America's unions support the president's executive action. "For far too long, our broken immigration system has allowed employers to drive down wages and working conditions in our country," the AFL-CIO says on its website. "The brunt of the impact has been born by immigrant workers, who face the highest rates of wage theft, sexual harassment, and death and injury on the job."

What Griswold & the AFL-CIO are hinting at is that the large number of unskilled laborers in the illegal immigrant pool essentially free up Americans to seek out higher, skilled-labor jobs. (Historically, the AFL-CIO is not a fan of policies that drive down skilled labor salaries, so their position on immigrants should tell you something.)
 

cmad1977

Hero
I guess you don't live in California. Many women stay at home with the kids while the men of the household families go earn the money to pay the rent.

Wow. I'd like to live in your part of California. Here in Los Angeles, among my circle of married/unmarried/divorced people with kid(s) there is exactly one family where the man goes to make the money and the woman stay at home... It's mine. And actually it's the woman making the money and me at home with the kid. Everyone else, friends, coworkers(of my wife's and my former coworkers) need two incomes to pay rent/mortgages/bills and pretty soon I'm sure we will too. These are let servers and bartenders either. I'm talking tech people making 6 figures, film editors with serious accolades(Emmys etc). Business owners and the like.

Of all the illegals I've worked with/around both the man and the woman worked.. Sometimes the kid too. So...
Again.. I would love to live in your California. Sounds so 50's!
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Pardon me, but apparently you have a misunderstanding of "due process": all that that means is that a person is entitled to the legal proceedings the government has set forth in its judicial/legal frameworks.

In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, he got due process under current US law. As noted upthread, all 4 drone strikes were authorized by the secret courts set up during the Bush admin- by the laws passed in our Legislative branch- for handling the targeting terrorists, either for certain kinds of surveillance, capture, or termination.

Um, wow. You're a lawyer and you describe due process like that? It doesn't mean that you get some kind of hearing, it means that you're afforded ALL of the legal rights and protections. Clearly Alwaki did not get a trial by jury, or the right to confront his accusers in court, or any of the other things afforded by due process to American citizens. And he didn't get a hearing in a secret court, either, despite your claims he did. Instead, he got a legal memo that said that the US government didn't think that he qualified for his due process rights under the 4th amendment, and that they thought that they could just kill him based on the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) that was currently in effect. So he was categorically denied his due process, and no court ever sat to decide his fate. It was all lawyers convincing their clients (the US government) that their clients didn't have to worry about the legal ramifications of assassinating a US citizen because the lawyers didn't think it was against the law.

Seriously, you can think this was a good thing, or make it into yet another 'blame Bush' moment, but Obama's administration decided to bureaucratically remove Alwaki's rights and then kill him. Doesn't matter who left the gun on the table, it matters who picks it up and shoots someone.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top