Is Trump's plan to "impound" remittances of undocumented immigrants intrinsically evil?

[MarkInOregon]

So then is it moral if I just walk in your house and sit on the couch? Is it less moral if you have a fence and I cut it and you have to pay to fix it?

It’s not quite the same thing.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[LethalMouse]

How is the company (Western Union, for example) that sends the money to Mexico going to know if the person sending the money is an illegal immigrant?

Always “what” vs “how”

As with alll political disagreements, for example no one says to not help the poor. We debate HOW.

The issue of the concept vs the details. So in this question of morality he asked of the what, not the how.

If the onky available how turns out to be wrong/immoral etc… then the what cant be accomplished.

As in is it immoral to save your life?

No

What if the only way is to kill 50 people to get to you in time?

Then it is still not immoral the act of saving your life, BUT we can not execute it becuase the only how is clearly inmoral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How did we go from tax evasion money to taking babies?

When did tax evasion enter the picture? I thought the question was about impounding the earnings of illegal immigrants? Most illegal immigrants do pay income tax and other taxes - except those that get paid under the table. But getting paid under the table is an employer’s crime, not an employee’s crime.

As for having babies, that is a direct consequence of exnihilo’s general comment:

Illegal immigrants first act is to enter or stay in a country illegally. So yes, at the root of* whatever they do** is a violation of the law the same as with illegal drug dealers.*

It is too general, as I pointed out in my comment about having babies. If whatever they do while they are here is illegal and subject to being impounded, then so is having babies, and those babies would be subject to impounding.

 

[MarkInOregon]

How did we go from tax evasion money to taking babies?

Unless the illegal immigrant is being paid under the table there is most likely no tax evasion going on. Often illegal immigrants pay taxes–i.e. the money is withheld from their paycheck (social security & medicare and federal and state income tax) --if they’re not able to file a tax return because the documents they used to gain employment are fake–then they are paying into the system and unable to access some of the benefits they are paying into and unable to seek the possible refund of income tax withheld. That’s hardly tax evasion. I’ll bet you’ll find more tax evasion with citizens who don’t report their income from this and that odd job that they were paid in cash for or who cross over to a state like ours and purchase goods without paying a sales tax and who fail to report those purchases and pay the use tax to their state as required.

Until the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 those in the Western Hemisphere were free to come and go as they pleased and there was no huge problem with that.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The work is not the same as if they were born here. The illegal workers are avoiding taxes

…generally not true. See Mark’s excellent post just above.

work place safety, wage laws, and other rules.

Those are employer’s crimes, not employee’s crimes.

In modern social welfare states we have all manner of rules that supposedly protect workers and citizens. The illegals are avoiding these rules and thus, by the logic of the welfare state, endangering themselves and others.

True, except that it is the employer’s, not the employees doing the endangering.

Regarding the kids that isn’t the issue at hand. I imagine in most cases kids aren’t taken from parents subject to civil asset forfeiture. You could make an argument that being illegal is an act of endangerment for the children just as dealing drugs may be.

You would have a hard time making that argument stick.

 

[LethalMouse]

When did tax evasion enter the picture? I thought the question was about impounding the earnings of illegal immigrants? Most illegal immigrants do pay income tax and other taxes - except those that get paid under the table. But getting paid under the table is an employer’s crime, not an employee’s crime.

As for having babies, that is a direct consequence of exnihilo’s general comment:

Illegal immigrants first act is to enter or stay in a country illegally. So yes, at the root of* whatever they do*** is a violation of the law the same as with illegal drug dealers.

It is too general, as I pointed out in my comment about having babies. If whatever they do while they are here is illegal and subject to being impounded, then so is having babies, and those babies would be subject to impounding.

Well I think both sides can choose to ignore common sense or to accept it.

If he really means EVERYTHING then he is ridiculous

If he meant everything in common toungue and context… and the other side says steaking babies to try and convolute and confuse so that they make illegal money legal… that too is ridiculous

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well I think both sides can choose to ignore common sense or to accept it.

If he really means EVERYTHING then he is ridiculous

If he meant everything in common toungue and context… and the other side says steaking babies to try and convolute and confuse so that they make illegal money legal… that too is ridiculous

I’m not sure which “he” you are talking about. If “he” means Trump, then no, I don’t think Trump ever intended to take babies away from their parents. Trump only spoke of taking away monetary earnings from illegal immigrants, which I still disagree with. At least Trump did not try to justify his position with any moral argument. However the moral argument that I was addressing was the more general one that exnihilo proposed. And that is the argument I was addressing with my remarks about taking away babies. It is not so much an argument against Trump’s view as it is a challenge to come with a better moral justification for his position than any I have yet seen here.

 

[MarkInOregon]

As pointed out by another I’m not sure crossing the border isn’t immoral. From a property rights standpoint it could be.

The work is not the same as if they were born here. The illegal workers are avoiding taxes, work place safety, wage laws, and other rules. In modern social welfare states we have all manner of rules that supposedly protect workers and citizens. The illegals are avoiding these rules and thus, by the logic of the welfare state, endangering themselves and others.

Illegal immigrants don’t avoid tax’s (unless paid under the table–in which case the employer is the cheat–and they don’t avoid workplace safety rules, wage and tax laws and other rules–those are rules that the employer must follow and if he doesn’t he’s the one breaking the law–he’s also breaking the law if he knowingly hires an illegal immigrant–every employer is required to verify eligibility to work here–anyone that we hire has to complete a Form I-9 and provide two pieces of approved ID–if we don’t get that we are in violation of the law and subject to fines. The work is the same. They don’t endanger anyone by doing the work–if the employer creates unsafe work conditions for anyone–they are the ones at fault. Let’s stop blaming illegal immigrants for the crimes of their employers.

“There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the boom of Abraham. The rich man died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.”

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. The the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me…Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me…’ "

It is funny to me that people who reside in a nation that was created on land stolen from those who were here originally and who were either killed or displaced from their land and herded onto reservations–cry out so much about the injustice of illegal immigration. Perhaps the founding of this nation and our annexation of this land could be viewed in the same light. Perhaps all of our property should be seized and returned to those from whom it was taken? Now that we’ve come and possessed the “house” of the native americans we’re going to build a fence around it…

I’m not saying we don’t have a right to, but I am suggesting we shouldn’t act as if we are lily white upholders of morality against some immoral invading force out to destroy us. These people come here looking to feed their families or fleeing persecution and violence. We have a sister parish in Honduras and it is so dangerous and unsafe there that we can no longer visit nor are they able to come here–is it moral for us to turn away those fleeing the violence? What’s more immoral their crossing our border or us turning them away and/or shipping them back? Perhaps this issue is more complex than the simple black and white way so many want frame the issue.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[LethalMouse]

The first he was him: exnihilo

The point being no reasonabke person should assune his arguement in context meant what you clain or any derivation thereof.

IF he did mean that he is a ridiculous human being.

Just as any suggestion that he meant that is either plain ridiculous or malice induced ridiculousness.

Ie: if he was speaking normally which we should go with first, that makes you being ridiculous either for mental capacity reasons or just to be clever and trick people (malice)

My apologies if you know this man well enough to know he is ridiculous in which case the refudiation of ridiculousness is more acceptable, however should he truly be that ridiculous it might be best to write him off as a loon…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The first he was him: exnihilo

The point being no reasonabke person should assune his arguement in context meant what you clain or any derivation thereof.

IF he did mean that he is a ridiculous human being.

Just as any suggestion that he meant that is either plain ridiculous or malice induced ridiculousness.

Ie: if he was speaking normally which we should go with first, that makes you being ridiculous either for mental capacity reasons or just to be clever and trick people (malice)

My apologies if you know this man well enough to know he is ridiculous in which case the refudiation of ridiculousness is more acceptable, however should he truly be that ridiculous it might be best to write him off as a loon…

No, I don’t know exnihilo. And I don’t seriously think exnihilo favors taking babies away from illegal immigrants. But when a specific position (like impounding wages) is supported by appealing to a more general principle (anything done by an illegal is illegal), then that general principle is fair game for criticism, even if one of the implications of that general principle (taking babies from their parents) was not anticipated or supported by the proponent of the position. It just goes to show that the general principle on which the conclusion is based is flawed, since it leads to an absurd implication.

 

[LethalMouse]

No, I don’t know exnihilo. And I don’t seriously think exnihilo favors taking babies away from illegal immigrants. But when a specific position (like impounding wages) is supported by appealing to a more general principle (anything done by an illegal is illegal), then that general principle is fair game for criticism, even if one of the implications of that general principle (taking babies from their parents) was not anticipated or supported by the proponent of the position. It just goes to show that the general principle on which the conclusion is based is flawed, since it leads to an absurd implication.

In casual convo if I said “Man I love Potatoes, I am glad they are in so much stuff, french fries, chips, mashed potatoes, baked potatoes, potato salad. Man! Potatoes are in everything!!”

You would understand me completely barring you having some literal issues like being autistic.

You would not mentally need to say “so if potatoes are in everything then they are in your shoes? In a light bulb?”

No you would understnad.

70% of the posters who come here to convince themselves they are right about everything use literal dissection legalism non stop.

People at maybe 50 ish percent in general have become this but notably in the potato example it is never done only, when such a false presentation can be used to confuse and manipulate…

Quite frankly my pet peeve in life

Since some on your side challenge morality vs legality note that this manner of speech could prove you right in court ie: “he is crazy and needs commited because he said potatoes are inside light bulbs”

However it would never be a moral arguement

 

[Erich]

It is funny to me that people who reside in a nation that was created on land stolen from those who were here originally and who were either killed or displaced from their land and herded onto reservations–cry out so much about the injustice of illegal immigration. Perhaps the founding of this nation and our annexation of this land could be viewed in the same light. Perhaps all of our property should be seized and returned to those from whom it was taken?

We know from Genesis that God told Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you * … To your offspring I will give this land” – but the above reminds me of a comedian’s take on this passage of Scripture from the perspective of the Canaanites, which went something along the lines of: “Hey, Abram (or whatever your name is), who said you could pitch your tent and build an altar on my property? It’s not your property, it’s my property? Oh yeah, says who? Says God. Riiight.”

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...can_progress.JPG/300px-American_progress.JPG*

 

[ShrodingersCat]

MarkInOregon:
It’s the attitude behind the desire to build the wall that I believe makes the wall hateful.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In casual convo if I said “Man I love Potatoes, I am glad they are in so much stuff, french fries, chips, mashed potatoes, baked potatoes, potato salad. Man! Potatoes are in everything!!”

You would understand me completely barring you having some literal issues like being autistic.

You would not mentally need to say “so if potatoes are in everything then they are in your shoes? In a light bulb?”

No you would understnad.

70% of the posters who come here to convince themselves they are right about everything use literal dissection legalism non stop.

People at maybe 50 ish percent in general have become this but notably in the potato example it is never done only, when such a false presentation can be used to confuse and manipulate…

Quite frankly my pet peeve in life

Since some on your side challenge morality vs legality note that this manner of speech could prove you right in court ie: “he is crazy and needs commited because he said potatoes are inside light bulbs”

However it would never be a moral arguement

Well, if you want to interpret this as casual conversation, then that’s OK too. I will just have to interpret the “arguments” for impounding illegals’ pay as casual comments too, like “How about those illegals, eh? I side with Trump. We should dock their pay.” At which point I would casually say “I don’t think so”. And that would be the end of it. Anything beyond that becomes non-casual, attempts at convincing through logical argument. And when we do that, we have to be accurate and precise about what we say.

 

[MarkInOregon]

It’s the attitude behind the desire to build the wall that I believe makes the wall hateful.

What is the attitude that you believe is behind the desire to build the wall? Is it the same attitude that is behind our immigration laws? Or do you believe that the attitude behind our immigration law is somehow benign and welcoming and it is only those wishing to enforce that law that have a hateful attitude? Is it hateful for someone to believe that our immigration laws should be enforce and that a more effective manner of enforcement is needed? Is it hateful to assume the worst motives in people we disagree with? I guess I think it’s more productive to discuss issues on their merits rather than just name calling or labeling those we disagree with. When you call it hateful you just get the defenses up and it makes it that much harder to have a rational discussion–in my opinion–which, granted, is not worth all that much.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[ShrodingersCat]

What is the attitude that you believe is behind the desire to build the wall? Is it the same attitude that is behind our immigration laws? Or do you believe that the attitude behind our immigration law is somehow benign and welcoming and it is only those wishing to enforce that law that have a hateful attitude? Is it hateful for someone to believe that our immigration laws should be enforce and that a more effective manner of enforcement is needed? Is it hateful to assume the worst motives in people we disagree with? I guess I think it’s more productive to discuss issues on their merits rather than just name calling or labeling those we disagree with. When you call it hateful you just get the defenses up and it makes it that much harder to have a rational discussion–in my opinion–which, granted, is not worth all that much.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I used the word in case, by my concise comment, I seemed to endorse the idea of the wall.

Every country has immigration laws, some are too strict, but really I just don’t like the message Trump is spreading with regards to immigration in general. Hardlining on immigration in the way he does comes off as very intolerant.

 

[LethalMouse]

Well, if you want to interpret this as casual conversation, then that’s OK too. I will just have to interpret the “arguments” for impounding illegals’ pay as casual comments too, like “How about those illegals, eh? I side with Trump. We should dock their pay.” At which point I would casually say “I don’t think so”. And that would be the end of it. Anything beyond that becomes non-casual, attempts at convincing through logical argument. And when we do that, we have to be accurate and precise about what we say.

You are doing it again by applying “casual convo” to change the meaning in some courtroom dissection like asking a witness a yes or no question to which the answer sounds different than if in context.

The point was the speech patterns of humans and meanings of what they say are essentially the same in casual convo as an arguement.

Only in an arguement though minus a mental disorder does anyone disect an insane literalness when it serves the same purpose as the fake yes/no question.

There is no diff between “did you take that” “Yes” seee he is guilty!!! And what you do.

Of course the full answer is “yes I took that because I had set mine down next to it and they are identical”

You are doing the same thing basically… too many people do… the apocalypse… I want it… no more dishonesty… please God come back.

 

[pnewton]

It is not evil. The immigrants are in America illegally. .

What does the second statement have to do with the first? Just because one is illegal does not exempt them from being a victim of an evil act.

The government can do anything within the law to make sure illegal immigration does not take place

Not only is this irrelevant, that is, not the question, it is circular. Anything within the law is legal? Okay. The question here is a moral one, not a legal one.

 

[thistle]

Trump’s proposal will not work.

If I were an illegal and the laws were amended to prevent me sending money now through Western Union, for example, I would simply ask a friend who is a legal resident/citizen to send the money for me.

 

[exnihilo]

Illegal immigrants don’t avoid tax’s (unless paid under the table–in which case the employer is the cheat–and they don’t avoid workplace safety rules, wage and tax laws and other rules–those are rules that the employer must follow and if he doesn’t he’s the one breaking the law–he’s also breaking the law if he knowingly hires an illegal immigrant–every employer is required to verify eligibility to work here–anyone that we hire has to complete a Form I-9 and provide two pieces of approved ID–if we don’t get that we are in violation of the law and subject to fines. The work is the same. They don’t endanger anyone by doing the work–if the employer creates unsafe work conditions for anyone–they are the ones at fault. Let’s stop blaming illegal immigrants for the crimes of their employers.

…

It is funny to me that people who reside in a nation that was created on land stolen from those who were here originally and who were either killed or displaced from their land and herded onto reservations–cry out so much about the injustice of illegal immigration. Perhaps the founding of this nation and our annexation of this land could be viewed in the same light. Perhaps all of our property should be seized and returned to those from whom it was taken? Now that we’ve come and possessed the “house” of the native americans we’re going to build a fence around it…

I’m not saying we don’t have a right to, but I am suggesting we shouldn’t act as if we are lily white upholders of morality against some immoral invading force out to destroy us. These people come here looking to feed their families or fleeing persecution and violence. We have a sister parish in Honduras and it is so dangerous and unsafe there that we can no longer visit nor are they able to come here–is it moral for us to turn away those fleeing the violence? What’s more immoral their crossing our border or us turning them away and/or shipping them back? Perhaps this issue is more complex than the simple black and white way so many want frame the issue.

If a man is paid in cash he is obligated to pay taxes on it. Why would you think that it is the employer who is solely at fault? The employer might be himself not following the law but that doesn’t give a free pass to the employee. An employer couldn’t employ illegals unless they first violated the law to get here and enter the labor market. I think both employers and illegals share blame for our current situation.

I can’t defend all the actions taken by our ancestors in regards to settling this land. But that doesn’t mean that today we can or should ignore the rule of law. Honduras is a dangerous place but it is because of the people there. That logically follows from the fact we are not talking about natural dangers but moral dangers, which are acts of man. There is no reason to think that those who immigrate here excludes those who make it dangerous back home. We are not obligated to create dangerous conditions in our country because dangerous conditions exist in theirs. What would be better is to help improve their country not harm ours.