Forum Thread

Considerations of the "illegals"

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    My ultra-conservative old h.s. buddy/now email adversary sent me a brief complaint about
    illegal immigrants exploiting the "goodies" of our welfare "largesse". After his writhing writing,
    (the country's doomed) he asked what my opinion is on letting . . .THEM . . .. vote.
    My reply.
    The issue of illegality is surely problematic with respect to health care. Regarding whether "illegals" should be able to vote, quite simply the status would be "NO!!" You wanna vote here, become a citizen or at least have some status of quasi-legal residency recognized by OUR government as providing you the right to engage in its process—voting.
    But regarding health care for illegals it's a different matter.
    What the hell do you do about some illegal woman who's in breech labor . . . or some guy with rupture appendix . . .or even people otherwise drastically needing medical care? Ideally they shouldn't be entitled to it. But interactive humanitarianism (especially given modern demographic distributions including rampant infiltrations of those illegals) almost requires that they're provided for not only their own sakes. For our survival vs. either the rage-retaliations of their peers if we just let 'em bleed-out as they scream . . . and/or the infections of their untreated communicable diseases if we don't provide them some kind of standard of living other than former-day Calcutta infamy.
    Ideally as well, of course, we'd get rid of the illegals. Even if "profiling" the means, street-stop and domicile-entry checks for documents. Got none? Out you go. But that's no only a logistical impossibility, but from the survival standpoint of quite a number of Major US businesses, a futile financial factor. They need the cheap labor to pick and pick apart, etc.
    I've gone through this "domain" of dilemma for a couple years concerning various aspects of the economy. It seems to me that we come down to a bottom-line of what we have to do because we can't do otherwise.
    We can't deport millions who are all but "enmeshed" in our economy and legit demographic distributions.
    If we shut-off the bottom-level of survival for anyone (legal and/or illegal) who has no means of even getting a job (given the present situation) . . . .what chaos will result? Maybe "deficit" and "balance" and such are the sole focus of so many so comfortable . . .who would not be if entitlements to merely survive were stopped for a mass of our population. Precedents of results were revealed in France and Russian most notably.
    It almost comes down to an impossibility to change the needs-dimension (unemployment, even illegality).
    Thus something has to be done to revise the economic/socio-distribution system in order to avoid melt-down of survival status . . .resulting in flare-up of revenge/retaliation . . .seizure replacing recipience for those hordes that, had not our private sector mass-emigrated employment from our shores, would have been earning their subsidence level in local factory or mill jobs with benefits. HERE.
    We've elevated the "demiurge of economy" into a position usurping the throne of the true sacred level of the society as well as the ecology. The monetary module (certificate, scrip, share, bill, even debt-equity "tranche") has become the coveted "ultimate natural resource" to the extent that people-unto-corporations-unto the government itself could give a shit less about the substantive resources (pure water, clean air, socio-economic sufficiency of a populace). Big bucks for a fractional re-employment stint for a brief duration to build a pipeline over a major aquifer (already lowered) and all hell's raised that anyone would not just go ahead because there's the bucks (or share value increment) to be made, screw mere water!! Same scenario of senselessness with fracking. (Just yesterday I read a politician's advocacy that we stop the "nonsense" and expense of any more involvement with "alternative energies" and get down to the "reality of expanding fracking so that we can continue to live in the real world of oil.")
    We need a three-tier economy.
    An "infra-level" that provides survival for (and status quo stability of) the "lower classes" – but requiring them to function in even menial positions for the cleanliness or otherwise of municipal (and other) realms.
    We definitely need a expansion of jobs through revision of domestic ("on-shore") manufacturing, implementing, upgrading (see a expansion of jobs through revision of domestic ("on-shore") manufacturing, implementing, upgrading (see
    But then we surely need to maintain the private-sector open-ended Capitalistic opportunity for advancement, fulfillment, aggrandizement, even greed. But also new need to tweak the means to return, from those who amass, a greater percent than they've been paying back into the system (which includes the whole country – not just their specific corporate schema and schemes) . . . while still leaving the ultras even clear after-tax millions to provide as reward, incentive, investment, expenditure into the "high-end", and of course philanthropy, grants, gifts, and all.
    We need to examine, to analyze, socio-economic systems as a scientific process, even as a form of machinery. What are the parts? What is the "fuel" or "energy"? what can be changed it it's not operating optimally.
    Or should the analogy be a fluid-dynamic in which so much of the flow from the reservoir module (govt. fundings, welfare, etc.) gets re-circulated (paid-out back into the economy through purchases, rent, taxes . . . .yet there's an ever-increasing deficit in the fluid volume (debt-level) . . . . .where's it leaking?
    Or is there a significant "evaporation" up into the "cloud-chambers of board room barons and corporate cash-reserves? And billionaires?