A Day without Immigrants

[Traviesa 0]

What I am saying is that hiring an illegal immigrant (who you may or may not know is illegal) to wash dishes is not the moral equivalent of child prostitution.

No, it is not. And don't put words in my mouth. I did not say it was the moral equivalent of child prostitution--obviously it is not.

What I said was that if we allow employers to break laws about hiring undocumented aliens, what's to stop them from arguing that they had to hire children or skip paying taxes to survive?

Such things are the risk they take in coming over. It's like signing up for a dangerous job and wondering why you got hurt??

Just like the miners who were hurt or died because the coal mine owners didn't comply with mine safety laws? It's their own fault that they were injured or killed because, hey, they knew coal-mining was dangerous?

It's the risk you take in taking on a dangerous job-is it their fault? No, but it is a risk.

[mercuryroad 0]

What I am saying is that hiring an illegal immigrant (who you may or may not know is illegal) to wash dishes is not the moral equivalent of child prostitution.

No, it is not. And don't put words in my mouth. I did not say it was the moral equivalent of child prostitution--obviously it is not.

What I said was that if we allow employers to break laws about hiring undocumented aliens, what's to stop them from arguing that they had to hire children or skip paying taxes to survive?

Here is what you said:

My family, if we had a business, wouldn't resort to cheating to stay afloat. We were raised better.

How would that be okay? Would it be okay if we decided to hire some young children? If we had a side business in cocaine and child prostitution to tide us over? If we decided not to pay taxes?

That is what you said......where am I misunderstanding?

[pax 0]

I did not say that they were morally equivalent. Of course they're not.

I said that I don't buy the excuse that businesses need to hire illegal labor to survive. And that if we say it's okay for businesses to break the laws against hiring undocumented aliens, then it should also be okay for them to break other laws. Which it's not.

[mercuryroad 0]

I did not say that they were morally equivalent. Of course they're not.

I said that I don't buy the excuse that businesses need to hire illegal labor to survive. And that if we say it's okay for businesses to break the laws against hiring undocumented aliens, then it should also be okay for them to break other laws. Which it's not.

You just did it again.......

[pax 0]

You're confusing moral equivalence--which I never suggested--with the argument that it's okay for businesses to break the law in order to sustain themselves.

[mercuryroad 0]

You're confusing moral equivalence--which I never suggested--with the argument that it's okay for businesses to break the law in order to sustain themselves.

Your argument is that if we let a company break one law to survive (illegal immigration) then we must let them break all laws (child prostitiution) to survive, thereby making the two the same.

[Sinergy 3]

fuzzy wuzzy wuz a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had no hair, wuz fuzzy wuzzy very fuzzy?

[pax 0]

That doesn't, however, constitute moral equivalence.

The argument posed by MissLiss was that it's okay for family businesses to hire illegal immigrants if hiring American workers or legal immigrant workers would be detrimental to the health of the business. That's her argument, not mine. I replied that by that logic, it would also be okay for family businesses to engage in other illegal activities to survive as well.

Let's take the more extreme examples out of the equation and focus on what I figure is the best legal and moral "fit" for the situation: tax evasion. Now, no one is directly hurt by tax evasion. No one will die or starve if a company engages in creative bookkeeping. But is it good in the long run? Is it something we want to encourage? No. Is it the moral equivalent of child prostitution? Of course not--which is why the penalties for child sex trafficking are more severe than for tax evasion. The crowd heaves a great, resounding "duhhh."

But again, do we want to encourage tax evasion? Do we say it's okay for businesses not to pay taxes if they don't feel like it, or even if paying the taxes would hurt the business? No. We do not. And should not. Uncle Sam always, always, ALWAYS has first dibs on your money--hence why the IRS and Sallie Mae can garnish your wages if you don't pay taxes or student loans.

Edited April 24, 2006 by pax

[mercuryroad 0]

That doesn't, however, constitute moral equivalence.

The argument posed by MissLiss was that it's okay for family businesses to hire illegal immigrants if hiring American workers or legal immigrant workers would be detrimental to the health of the business. That's her argument, not mine. I replied that by that logic, it would also be okay for family businesses to engage in other illegal activities to survive as well.

Let's take the more extreme examples out of the equation and focus on what I figure is the best legal and moral "fit" for the situation: tax evasion. Now, no one is directly hurt by tax evasion. No one will die or starve if a company engages in creative bookkeeping. But is it good in the long run? Is it something we want to encourage? No. Is it the moral equivalent of child prostitution? Of course not--which is why the penalties for child sex trafficking are more severe than for tax evasion. The crowd heaves a great, resounding "duhhh."

But again, do we want to encourage tax evasion? Do we say it's okay for businesses not to pay taxes if they don't feel like it, or even if paying the taxes would hurt the business? No. We do not. And should not. Uncle Sam always, always, ALWAYS has first dibs on your money--hence why the IRS and Sallie Mae can garnish your wages if you don't pay taxes or student loans.

Aye chica....since we agree on the solution, let's just drop it and call a truce. I'm tired and I'd rather make jokes.

[pax 0]

Now, I'm off to my second job, so play nicely, kids!

(Where all our workers are legal, and where I did have to fill out an I-9. LOL.)

Well, Merc, there's something we can all agree on.

[gimygirl 0]

*sits on arijit's lap and watches*

[mercuryroad 0]

*sits on arijit's lap and watches*

If I had a smily that would moon you....I would so use it right now.

[Bootylicious!! 2]

*sits on arijit's lap and watches*

I hope he's done taking his major dump then.

[Sinergy 3]

*sits on arijit's lap and watches*

If I had a smily that would moon you....I would so use it right now.

[iceyspots 0]

How many homeless people who can't find a job would suddenly find themselves with work, food, and a home?

Dude....you've got to be kidding me

I have to agree about the "You've got to be kidding me" A large portion of the homeless are schizophrenic or touched by some other mental disease/disorder... and the rest may have fallen into a life of drugs, but the rest.. Not quite sure about...