I started reading your post and this really made me lol So the virtue signalling "progressives", "liberals", "left", etc take care of them. As to education. That's what DACA is about. It is about paying for TRESPASSERS' education. All of this while we have homeless, and we do not have the government paying for the nation's actual children's education. Why? It's a chance to virtue signalling about protecting these "dreamers" while ignoring the dreamers who actually are not trespassing.
Have you forgotten where you live...? The only reason the USA exists is because of European TRESPASSERS who came here, killed over 10 million Native Americans and stole their land. And you are complaining about TRESPASSERS getting an education in America...
The reason the poor are being ignored in America is because we have a regressive taxation system, if it was progressive the government could afford to pay for everyone to attend public school without any problems.
Oh, and Happy New Year! :)
This is all fallacious. At the arrival of Europeans, there was not even America, since this is a post-colonization concept. In the new continent there were no nations or state of legality, which if it existed in Europe, to say that Europeans are trespassers is to fully accept its legal framework, which only existed after its arrival.
No, actually what you are saying is fallacious. Before the Europeans arrived there were over 140 Native American tribes living in North America and they were all organized on different parts of the continent. They had their own laws\rules and borders. It does not matter what the land was called, it belonged to them and it was taken from them... http://www.ushistory.org/us/1.asp
No, of course not. The Amerindians had no laws only had customs and their rules were de facto and not de jure, besides that they were based on the use of coercive force, we can say then that under that concept of government of the strongest the Europeans were duly imposed, and they did not have borders either. They had only some small territories of the whole great continent.
In addition, many American tribes such as the Totonacs or the Tlaxcalans allied with the Europeans to destroy the great American powers such as the Aztecs. In fact, in the conquest of Mexico, more Native Americans fought against the Aztecs than Europeans, so I do not know where the consideration of trespassers would come from.
This is also not true, most of the American territory was not inhabited, not even explored, before the arrival of the Europeans. Many Europeans inhabited places before any native tribe did.
We could also blame the slave trade on the Africans themselves, since the white slavers bought their slaves from black Africans who raided the interior and captured their brothers to sell.
No, we could not blame them for that, but we would also give part of the responsibility.
What I was referring to is that they did not consider him trespassers, and they are also part of the Amerindian peoples, or is it that only the Aztecs are Americans and the Totonacs are not?
The white races of the world are famous for this tactic. It wouldn't be hard to find a faction in any country who wouldn't take up arms against the sitting government if they thought they could prevail. The Middle East is a perfect example as is the sort of turmoil you're experiencing in Venezuela under international sanctions for non-compliance to the international financier dictates that destroys your currency and hobbles your economy to condition the people for revolution.
You're right though. The natives of this huge continent did not consider the Europeans trespassers. They often welcomed them. But that was to their peril since the invaders thought the natives were little more than heathen animals who couldn't understand the concept of ownership (which they largely could not since it was inconceivable in their culture).
Just because the invasion of the Americas by the Europeans is an already established fact does not make it legitimate. It was theft and dispossession regardless of whether the natives believed they possessed their land or not.
Rome gave the Iberian peninsula to the Goths to keep them from destroying Rome. The Basques who had lived there for centuries had to flee into the hills. That was an injustice.
If the US decided enough was enough and invaded and occupied Venezuela because thought it needed your oil and you weren't giving it to them, would that be okay with you? Venezuela doesn't need that much oil. I bet there would be plenty of Venezuelans who would rally behind the Americans to help them get established. Would that make it right?
That is the very crux of civilization and why I'm not a fan. All civilizations eventually collapse because they are hierarchical and inherently corrupt, built upon the bent backs of the systematically impoverished.
I do not believe that the "white races" are the guilty of evil in all countries, not even if there are "white races". To say that Venezuela is in crisis due to international sanctions is simply false, because they lasted more than 4 years in crisis before they placed any. Although that is another topic.
Maybe it was an injustice, maybe it was not right, that depends from the point where you see it, but I'm not justifying the colonization, I'm just saying that I think it's wrong to compare the colonizers with the illegal immigrants, they are two very different.
I just do not think the colonizers are trespassers, and they just call them opportunistically, because many Mexicans, not Latinos, only Mexicans, get upset because the people of the United States criticize the illegal immigration of Mexicans, and then they look for an excuse to justify their actions. I do not see Argentines, Chileans, Venezuelans, Brazilians, and other South Americans criticizing the colonizers, I only see Mexicans doing that. Do you know what they say in South America? Ignorantly many say that their countries are poor because they were colonized by the Spaniards and not by the British, a rather stupid thought, but at no time they call the colonizers "trespassers", because they know that everything that exists now in this continent is thanks to they.
It seems to me that many Mexicans are simply annoyed by the disproportionate wealth of the United States on the continent, and they want to put their hands there, but since they emigrate illegally, they justify themselves by saying that the colonizers are just like them.
And I do not think they act with a sense of belonging, have you seen what "Latinos" say in the United States? They criticize their own countries, and the people who live there, Alicia Machado, the Venezuelan who went on a campaign with Hillary Clinton, did not think twice before trampling her own country and waving the flag of the United States. But really many of them do not care about the Americas, they only care about riches, that is why they are not interested in making their own country prosper and only go to the United States.
Ok... that is like saying my laws/rules are better than yours, so your laws/rules don't count.
This is also not true, most of the American territory was not inhabited, not even explored, before the arrival of the Europeans. Many Europeans inhabited places before any native tribe did.Look at the map in the link I shared, Native American Tribes lived all over the entire continent.
You can call them whatever you want, trespassers, conquerors, thieves, pillagers, etc... it does not matter. It is a simple concept, the Native Americans were on the land first and the Europeans came and took it from them. Debating about what laws/rules did or did not exist and which were de facto or de jure is irrelevant. When Europeans were attacking Native Americans and kicking them off their land they were not worried about if they were breaking any of their rules/laws....
The map in the link you placed does not show the territory they occupied, only shows an area where cultures and tribes were similar and were not the same, did not inhabit the entire continent, not even half.
This map is more accurate, although it is in Spanish. It shows how the largest amount of the continental territory was inhabited by nomadic tribes, which means that they had no fixed border or civilization, much less rules.
Why not, the Native Americans were not on the land first, only in some portions. And it is not a valid comparison to make with the current problems of illegal immigration that exists in the current United States.
What you are saying here is that if you don't believe in acquisitive property rights, live directly off the land, wander around following the game and the seasons and live in such a was as to not need a structured, legalist authority structure you aren't actually occupying said land and so it's okay to be removed from that land by an invading people whose culture is fixated on acquisition, economic hierarchy, dominance and self-service. Correct?
I would not say that. I am referring to the fact that in most of the continental territory there were no tribe, civilization or people, who, as nomads, did not have a clearly delimited territory. There were many areas that the Europeans conquered without there being an apex of American civilization, that is, without pushing anyone from that place. And that is the main part of the continental territory.
Nor would I say that European culture is fixated on acquisition, perhaps it would be the same for all human culture, if you see the great American civilizations such as the Incas or the Aztecs you could notice how they were also "fixated" on acquisition.
We can make assumptions all night long about where they lived and what rules/laws they had and if you agree with them or not. It was a simple invasion by foreign invaders as it has occurred millions of times throughout thousands of years of human history on this planet.
I was not making comparison of illegal immigration problems, I was conjecturing that it is hypocritical to complain about trespassers in a country that was created by trespassers. If you believe the Europeans who came to this country were not trespassers that is your opinion as is mine that they were trespassers.
I totally agree with you.
Oh, and yes this would make sense if it were the trespassers complaining. I haven't trespassed anywhere and I am the one complaining.
Apples and Oranges. It does matter. We have the UN and we can travel anywhere on the planet in a day. We can mass communicate instantaneously. The borders are known, and the justice system can travel that fast too.
So yeah is that history? Yes. Is it relevant to today? No. Not at all.
Nope they couldn't. It isn't PUBLIC school the Dreamer act is for. That is for higher education. Which has increased in price dramatically once the government began GUARANTEEING student loans. If you look into it the vast majority of the institutions have taken extreme advantage of that which has lead to skyrocketing costs.
So this illusion the "government could afford to pay for everyone" is wrong on two fronts. First they might be able to DO that for a brief moment until this GUARANTEE lead to escalating costs as has happened with every GUARANTEE from the government. Second the government can't actually PAY for anything without first TAKING that payment from their citizens voluntarily or involuntarily.
Appeal to Tradition. Have not forgotten at all. It is just irrelevant in the modern era. The entire surface of the world is mapped, and the nations are known. It isn't a time of cultures exploring the unknown and imposing themselves upon those that the world is unaware of.
Also we have a LEGAL IMMIGRATION process which I am not opposed to. Trespassers I am very much against. LEGAL IMMIGRANTS go through a process and tend to actually integrate with the nation. Trespassers there is no such guarantee. Furthermore there is a double standard on how the trespassers are being treated and they expect the citizens to pay for it, or just live with the consequences.
This is not just a problem in the U.S. Immigration (Legal or Non) is becoming a problem in many places. Places like Sweden have aspects that are far worse than in the U.S.
I am not talking about loans, loans only make banks and the people who own banks more wealthy, while charging young American students interest. I am talking about the government paying for schools, everything you are saying in your response that is not possible works just fine in Denmark and that is because they have a progressive taxation system https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-01-20/why-danes-happily-pay-high-rates-of-taxes
I went to college with three Danes and two Norwegians. Not one of them went home they graduated. They all stayed in the US because of the high taxation in their homelands.
Loans were an example. The prices of our schools in the U.S. are rising NOT because it is a loan. They are rising because the government guarantees that it will back those loans. The prices are increasing because there is a guaranteed paycheck. So if somehow your prices for schooling are fixed and do not change that might make sense, but in the U.S. anything the government guarantees simply becomes like a budget situation for businesses. "I must show that we spent all that money or next year they'll decrease my budget" with the net effect being they (Schools, Hospitals, etc) being subsidized by the U.S. government increase their prices ever year.
Prior to the Guaranteed Student Loan program students might qualify for a Pell Grant but it didn't pay for everything and most people don't qualify. Other than that you could apply for PRIVATE scholarships. What remained the student had to find a way to pay.
With Guaranteed Student Loan everyone can go to higher education and the price to go to higher education has gone through the roof since it is guaranteed. The result is tons of people have huge debt when/if they graduate. Furthermore, universities have become organizations that just try to mass educate and the quality is pretty dismal. I have joked that a lot of these degrees might as well have come as a special prize out of Kracker Jacks boxes. Yet, in many cases that is true.
So it is a GUARANTEED LOAN... but it is the GOVERNMENT GUARANTEEING it. The same thing would happen if you remove the word LOAN. The keyword here is GUARANTEE.
As a result, a college degree is almost meaningless. In the past, kids left school, got a job and worked their way up. If they were good workers the company was happy to train them.
Now we have college graduates who have wasted four to six years of their lives getting an education without learning work skills. They whine that there are no good jobs available. We call them Snowflakes.
In Canada, most jobs require job certification before a company will even look at your resume. A prospective worker can borrow money from the government and pay thousands of dollars for privately run certification programs at inflated prices. The companies love this. It's called "externalizing expenses."
Many students today have the equivalent of a house payment but no house. Those student loans are very hard to default on. They are the virtual shackles of modern day slavery.
Yep I'll give someone a test I make up on the spot to check their skills, how good they are at problem solving, etc before I even consider hiring them. This is what I'll do with or without a degree as the degrees are largely worthless. They are more a large sign of debt.
Like I said Denmark (and many other countries) have a functioning system. So I am not sure what your argument is, we already have proof that a more progressive system works.
Oh I thought I should qualify. You won't EVER convince me that taxation of the income is just. I see it as theft. I believe in voluntarism. Guess what? Slavery worked too. That doesn't mean I endorse it that it was right.
I will not endorse stealing from people by the government and then the government choosing how to pay for it.
That doesn't mean I am against all government forms of income. If they put a tax, fee, etc on things that are voluntary and that people can live without then I don't have as much of a problem with that. Then if people object they can avoid those things, and they may lose some services and such, but as long as it doesn't make them unable to survive I don't have a problem with it.
I do have problems with involuntary situations where the person has no choice or they will be doomed in some way.
I thought I'd pass that along so you wouldn't waste too much time trying to make me think progressive taxation is just. I see it as just another form of slavery. Slaves sometimes are content.
I am a supporter of democracy, what you or I think about taxation is irrelevant. If the majority of a society democratically decide they want everyone to contribute 10% of their income so all children in the society can attend school for free I am fine with that decision because thats how democracy works.
The people who dont agree with the decision of the majority, have a choice to either live with it or move to another location into a society that have the same mind set as they do...
There is no QUANTITY of people that should ever magically be able to FORCE action upon others. If there is then where is that magical line. Democracy is put on a pedestal, but then how many people truly think about it.
What is the magical number? If 51% of the people say it is okay to enslave the other 49% of the population then does that make that okay?
I don't have the right to tell my neighbor how to live. My family and I don't have the right to tell my neighbor how to live. My neighborhood and I (except for that neighbor) don't have the right to tell my neighbor how to live. My city, my state, the world.
There is no magical number where it is suddenly okay to FORCE another human to act against their will. This is called slavery. Wrap it up in a fancy suit, but if they have no choice then it is still enslavement.
This goes for stealing from people too. Wrap it up in a big shiny bow named "government" doesn't change the fact it is stealing if it is involuntary.
Also just to save some time... don't bother saying "if you don't like it move" as this is a rather STUPID thing to say that usually comes up about this time in the discussion.
You don't want to be enslaved? Fine, move and leave all your stuff behind... good luck finding somewhere to live... You could maybe homestead the ocean if you are very wealthy... oh, you're not wealthy enough to do that? Too bad, I guess you're just stuck being a slave.
So the "you can leave" is a bullshit statement that usually comes up about now. If you were not thinking that then my apologies, I just wanted to save some back and forth replies that generally occur about this point in this argument.
EDIT: And yeah you did say it. So I guess you didn't really think out how realistic that is. That sounds great until you put a federal government over it all and keep giving that government more and more power so there no longer are allowed places with different mindsets.