The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

Anybody who calls someone a fascist because they're sick and tired of decades of political capitulation and spinelessness towards soft border control and pervasively okaying illegal immigration is basically just a scumfuck imo.

I wasn't calling you or anyone fascist. I was pointing out that nationalism, particularly the fervent kind that perceives those of other skin colors as outsiders and believes that a country should tend toward purity (however that's defined), is a key component of fascism, and so people shouldn't be surprised at the accusation.

I'm taking my definition of fascism from Robert Paxton's book The Anatomy of Fascism (2004), in which he writes:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Paxton came to his definition by tending to the similarities among typically described "fascist" countries--not to the differences, of which there are many. You can also look at his essay "The Five Stages of Fascism." Also, this is why I cringe when people describe national socialism as "left-wing." The nationalist elements of national socialism distinguish it from conventional left-wing models such as communism (of course, this doesn't mean there aren't authoritarian manifestations of left-wing politics).

 

[CiG]

I don't really agree or even see any legitimacy in your conflation between legally in a country vs. illegally in a country = anything to do with skin colour or purity. Nobody is arguing against work visas here or really anywhere, so...

Also, this is why I cringe when people describe national socialism as "left-wing." The nationalist elements of national socialism distinguish it from conventional left-wing models such as communism (of course, this doesn't mean there aren't authoritarian manifestations of left-wing politics).

Yeah this has become a cheap right-wing point in recent years. Something being socialist doesn't automatically mean left-wing. NS is non-Marxist socialism for example. I think this argument mostly comes from the libertarian-right who judge something as left or right based solely on economics. I get what they're saying but economics isn't the be-all end-all of politics.

There are others who say that right-wing isn't an actual thing to begin with and the only thing that unifies the right is their opposition to the left.

Edit: the left more generally can keep trying to conflate illegal immigration with immigration but nobody is buying it. Opposing illegal immigration is not the same as opposing immigration or hating brown people or believing in "purity" etc, your own link states that illegal immigration harms pretty much exclusively the poor, the uneducated and the unskilled and that should be the very context that the left should oppose it if they still stood for what they did historically.

 

[CiG]

Apologies for all the edits, using an iPod right now that sucks to type on.

 

[Dak]

The last few pages have used a lot of words to argue whether having an immigration policy is fascist and/or economically beneficial. Curse the current year.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't really agree or even see any legitimacy in your conflation between legally in a country vs. illegally in a country = anything to do with skin colour or purity. Nobody is arguing against work visas here or really anywhere, so...

Edit: the left more generally can keep trying to conflate illegal immigration with immigration but nobody is buying it. Opposing illegal immigration is not the same as opposing immigration or hating brown people or believing in "purity" etc

It is when our current administration used "illegal immigration" as a smokescreen:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ting-legal-immigrants-and-it-will-get-uglier/

As Ainsley reports, the administration has drastically reduced the number of green cards they grant and the number of green card holders who are granted citizenship. They’ve also tried to cut legal immigration levels, taken steps to all but shut America’s doors to asylum-seekers, unleashed ICE to pursue people for deportation who have been living lawfully in the U.S. for decades, and of course enacted the horrific family separation policy at the border, with the explicit intent of deterring people from trying to come to America lest their children be ripped from their arms.

But there’s an additional nuance here worth appreciating. While Trump (and many GOP candidates imitating him) have used immigration to launch many race-baiting appeals designed to energize the hard-core Trumpist base — from the claim that Dems coddle MS-13 to the vow to make Mexico pay for the wall — this issue is a bit different. Immigration advocates believe the attack on immigrants claiming benefits is directed not just at the base, but also at softer supporters of Trump or even Republicans who are turning away from him, such as GOP-leaning college educated or suburban whites who might recoil at the more obvious race-based messaging.

“While ‘immigrants take jobs’ works with the angry, resentful base, a more potent line of attack with the better educated, more successful — and more reluctant — Republican is the ‘immigrants use welfare’ distortion that this policy fight sets up,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, tells us. “These less rabid Republicans have jobs, homes, and security. They are more likely to resent the idea — inaccurate as it is — that their tax dollars are paying to support immigrants.”

In fact, as a recent Cato Institute study found, “immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans.”

That’s not to mention that nearly all Americans benefit at one time or another from programs that would fit under the expansive definition of “welfare” Republicans would like to propagate. For instance, if you’re not getting health insurance from the government in the form of Medicare or Medicaid, or getting subsidies through the ACA, the government is paying part of your health insurance premiums by making them tax-deductible. That’s far and away the largest tax expenditure on the books, over triple the size of the mortgage interest deduction, another government program you may benefit from.

 

[Dak]

In fact, as a recent Cato Institute study found, “immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans.”

It is telling that the author uses this to support a claim that

They are more likely to resent the idea — inaccurate as it is — that their tax dollars are paying to support immigrants.”

Less likely to use =/= do not use. Also still no delineation between legal and illegal immigrants, nor COO, nor job field, etc. This homogenizing effort to portray immigrants in a positive light is just as bad as demonizing the whole lot.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The Cato interpretation is retarded when they pretend the economic impacts of future generations of American citizens birthed from illegal immigrants doesn't matter. Welfare, in terms of things like food stamps, usually isn't even a big slice of the pie.

 

[Dak]

As much as I appreciate Bryan Caplan et al on a number of things, immigration is one aspect where the economic analyses miss the trees for the forest, to be as generous as possible.

 

[Einherjar86]

The entire origin of this debate goes back to economic concerns; and in the case of immigration, there's absolutely no consensus that immigrants are a drain on the overall economy. In fact, claims that they are a drain are exaggerated and often ill-informed.

If someone is asking specifically about economic matters, then it's completely relevant to bring up the economic factors and point out how criticisms of immigration "because it hurts the economy" are neither proven nor convincing.

 

[EternalMetal]

I have some thoughts on this matter that stem from personal experience. My mother owns and operates a house cleaning service that is in direct competition with those that employ illegals (im gonna use this term for simplicity) or those that are operated in the same manner. The barrier to profit is directly affected because of the cheaper prices of not having to get charged for taxes of the business or for employment hours. The "educated class" benefits from this because they can hire illegal labor for cheaper prices while being able to pocket the tax margin, but the damage to small business in this market are more extensive because there are more business taxes involved than merely the percentage taken from the hourly wage. Illegals further cut the profit margin by offering their labor for cheaper rates (affecting acceptable rate per hour charges) because they choose to live by a lower standard, do not have to pay the same taxes as tax paying Americans, and are easier to employ by competing businesses that choose to hire illegally because they are more willing to accept anemic wages.

The macroeconomic figures of course barely account for this, but I have yet to meet a personal contractor, lawn service, house cleaning service, or businesses of similar labor requirements that does not suffer from illegally competing options (or sell out and employ illegal workers to keep up). They compete for quality of life in a world where educated citizens can easily acquire a job at a "big" company that offers decent salaries, benefits, and vacation options.

Im smart enough to realize that the modest income of small business competitors does not affect the large scale economy, but I do think this is a legitimate problem for many honest Americans looking to make a living.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

That's why I support documentation. People are going to cross the border whether there's a wall there or not, and sorry but ICE kicking down doors isn't a good look. Bring them out of hiding from the police and government, give them some sort of residency employment status, and then we can go from there policy wise, including pay rates and taxes. It's not going to solve the problem outright and there will of course be some people still skirting the law, but it will put us into a better position of more ethically removing people from the country and more efficiently removing people who break the law, particularly gangs, from the population.

Mass deportation would be more expensive, imo, and the thought of it makes me want to puke. It's crazy to think that's even a policy debate.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

I find the tax implications of illegals confounding. If businesses are either reducing the salary expense they are declaring or simply not declaring those wages, wouldn't the government come out marginally ahead?

 

[Dak]

The entire origin of this debate goes back to economic concerns; and in the case of immigration, there's absolutely no consensus that immigrants are a drain on the overall economy. In fact, claims that they are a drain are exaggerated and often ill-informed.

If someone is asking specifically about economic matters, then it's completely relevant to bring up the economic factors and point out how criticisms of immigration "because it hurts the economy" are neither proven nor convincing.

How many times do I have to point out immigrants aren't a homogeneous suite? Saying "immigration helps the economy" is acting like the legal immigrant cardiologist from India and the illegal construction worker from Guatemala are equivalent. No one is arguing that a highly skilled labor influx hurts the economy. No one. But the US isn't getting whitehat hackers, cardiologists, and oncologists from Yemen. Or jumping the border from Mexico. Etc.

The macroeconomic figures of course barely account for this, but I have yet to meet a personal contractor, lawn service, house cleaning service, or businesses of similar labor requirements that does not suffer from illegally competing options (or sell out and employ illegal workers to keep up). They compete for quality of life in a world where educated citizens can easily acquire a job at a "big" company that offers decent salaries, benefits, and vacation options.

Im smart enough to realize that the modest income of small business competitors does not affect the large scale economy, but I do think this is a legitimate problem for many honest Americans looking to make a living.

Something else not mentioned here is the difference in quality of work. I also have a relative who works as a "handyman", and he has story after story of giving a job quote, being undercut by a Hispanic (he doesn't have information on their immigration status obviously), who winds up fucking the whole thing up with shit work, and the homeowner and/or landlord winds up paying essentially double to get it done right. Recent immigrants from Central and South America A. Often don't have a solid grasp of English (understandable), and B. Don't know/give two shits about code and/or good workmanship, because it's not a thing that is valued where they come from. This leads to destroyed economic value which isn't captured by standard economic statistics.

That's why I support documentation. People are going to cross the border whether there's a wall there or not, and sorry but ICE kicking down doors isn't a good look. Bring them out of hiding from the police and government, give them some sort of residency employment status, and then we can go from there policy wise, including pay rates and taxes. It's not going to solve the problem outright and there will of course be some people still skirting the law, but it will put us into a better position of more ethically removing people from the country and more efficiently removing people who break the law, particularly gangs, from the population.

Mass deportation would be more expensive, imo, and the thought of it makes me want to puke. It's crazy to think that's even a policy debate.

People cross the border based on incentives and risk assessment. A wall increases risks to some degree. So do mass deportations. The other prong is decreasing incentives by reduced welfare state and a refusal to hire illegals.

Routine, reasonable law enforcement making you puke isn't a basis for policy change.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Could anyone point to anything regarding tax fraud or the tax implications on businesses that hire undocumented workers?

edit: I've found approximate figures for taxes evaded by illegals. but that's an incomplete metric imo

 

[arg]

it's very simple (the below applies to illegals and low-skilled legal immigrants)

if they dont work
- they collect welfare

if they work,
- they steal jobs from americans
- they lower wages
- they likely still collect welfare because they have 5 kids

tax
- they either pay little tax cuz of low salary
- or pay tax but get a huge refund once a year because they have 5 kids
- or pay no tax cuz they're paid under the table

 

[CiG]

Poaching the best and brightest from "shitholes" is just colonialism by other means.

 

[CiG]

"Hey want to debate? Here's thousands of dollars."

"OMG THIS IS JUST LIKE SEXUAL HARASSMENT."

The saviour of the Democratic Party in full force idiocy.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

it's very simple

if they dont work
- they collect welfare

if they work,
- they steal jobs from americans
- they lower wages
- they likely still collect welfare because they have 5 kids
- they either pay little tax cuz of low salary
- or pay tax but get a huge refund once a year because they have 5 kids

I understand this much (though i don't know the validity of the welfare claim). I'm asking about a possible washing out of tax evaded by shifting the burden to businesses with a higher marginal tax rate.

edit: the welfare claim checks out

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Could anyone point to anything regarding tax fraud or the tax implications on businesses that hire undocumented workers?

edit: I've found approximate figures for taxes evaded by illegals. but that's an incomplete metric imo

Fraud or not doesn't matter. Most illegal laborers do not perform work valuable enough to be significantly taxed. Failure to report tips or cash wages isn't even on the radar.

 

[EternalMetal]

Something else not mentioned here is the difference in quality of work. I also have a relative who works as a "handyman", and he has story after story of giving a job quote, being undercut by a Hispanic (he doesn't have information on their immigration status obviously), who winds up fucking the whole thing up with shit work, and the homeowner and/or landlord winds up paying essentially double to get it done right. Recent immigrants from Central and South America A. Often don't have a solid grasp of English (understandable), and B. Don't know/give two shits about code and/or good workmanship, because it's not a thing that is valued where they come from. This leads to destroyed economic value which isn't captured by standard economic statistics.

This is harder to prove, but is true to a certain extent. Then again I know a number of "jack of all trade" type serviceman, and even among citizens their quality of work varies dramatically. Lots of these non-specialists will do stuff like construction, plumbing, electrical, etc type work without being properly certified to do so, and of course without acquiring the proper permits or following code standards.

My brother works as an architect at a mid-size firm, and even they sometimes get conned by contractors because their policy is to go with the lowest bidder (they usually appear more legit than a handyman, and usually get exposed by failed inspections and such).

Could anyone point to anything regarding tax fraud or the tax implications on businesses that hire undocumented workers?

edit: I've found approximate figures for taxes evaded by illegals. but that's an incomplete metric imo

I can help shed a little light on the issue based on my experience. I help my mother with her taxes and have dealt with tax collectors and the IRS in some aspect, and they largely operate on discretion. Basically the collector said that they know that a lot of small businesses have to hire illegals, and will ignore it on a small scale if business taxes are properly paid (just dont tell me kind of thing). He did say however that he does not shy away from slamming illegal businesses with fines, but they are usually more strict with the books of big businesses operated by people with business degrees who know how to skirt the law. Vague, but it tells me that most contractors and small businesses who operate using illegals are allowed to get away with it if they arent raking in too much cash (im sure that it is always a risk though). I don't know about any specific numbers though.