There are also thousands of other people that submitted their paperwork, paid thousands of dollars in fees and have been waiting years for their ability to become citizens; when did they become less important than illegals? Why are they not getting an expedited path to citizenship over people who clearly broke the law?

I'm not an Obama supporter; you have to ask one who is.


And if socialism was so amazing, those thousands of people legally going through the process, along with all the illegal immigrants in the US, would be immigrating to Scandinavia, which likes to consider itself the region of democratic socialism; yet they don't. Instead, they choose to come here.

I haven't seen the research as to the reasons why the US is a popular choice for legal immigration, but could it be that they know they can outwork the common American or possibility they have drunk the cool-aid that they will be the next millionaire?

What many don't think about is, there is something called societal costs associated with bad behavior of businesses.

For example:  pollution.  A company that takes shortcuts to save money and increase profits shifts the cost of cleanup and any associated health problems onto society.  Someone has to pay for the consequences of pollution, and in the past, it was tax payers.

Now that we have environmental protection laws, it is supposed to create a situation where it's cheaper to be responsible businesses than to pay the fines, cleanup costs and health care claims caused by pollution.

The same societal costs exist with illegal immigrants.  For the millions who work the low-paying jobs businesses illegally hire them to do, we taxpayers subsidize the workers through food stamps, other welfare, healthcare, education, and other tax-funded services like police, fire, roads, and recreational areas.  If the companies are paying the workers under the table, there are no withholding being collected.

So, if we have to pay $7 for a shake and $12 for a burger to support Americans making legitimate incomes instead of cheaper illegal labor doing those jobs, there is not much of a difference when you add what we already pay for illegals living here.  The money we spend would simply shift to a more open and honest cost going to legal workers versus a hidden, tax-funded cost going to illegals.

Democratic control of a socialist country can never happen.

In a land of millions, you can't govern by the popular will of the majority vote.  The majority is uneducated, uninformed, easily lured and uninterested in politics.  The usual form of democracy winds up like ours:  a representative government.  You vote for the reps, and they vote on the issues.

Even if we had a voting population interested enough and informed enough to intelligently vote on every single issue, the logistics of holding election after election would be cost and time prohibitive.  In this case, you'd also run into Tyranny of the Majority, where the majority always wins, and the minority has no voice in any issues.  Depending on the majority to pass laws that benefit the minority is not going to turn out fairly,  Case in point:  Gay Marriage.  Many states held elections, and the majority voted against legalizing Gay Marriage.  Those votes were overturned by federal mandate

Those elected to represent you will find ways to leverage that power for their own profit.  They will do so in the name of equality and the good of the state.  That will end "democracy".

Power corrupts ...

Ask yourself WHY no examples of Democratic Socialism exist in the world ... ever.

We need to remember the people we are talking about granting amnesty to are illegal immigrants, not those who entered the US legally.

Let's say you live in a Democratic Socialist nation.  Political structure is Democratic, and economic system is Socialized.

The economics have to be managed by the state if you expect fairness, proper treatment of the workers, equal distribution of goods, etc.

So, now the political leaders you elected Democratically are in charge of the economy, rewarding those they judge are playing by their rules, and punishing those who do not.  They are also planning what industries we need, and what we should be trading to obtain from other nations.

It's impossible to build a wall between the government and any Socialist economy.  That's the whole point of Socialism:  Power rests with the state.

In theory, you might be able to replace politicians who make bad economic decisions, but when they have the power to save or destroy entire industries, who is going to go against them?  The labor unions, who supposedly represent the people, will back whichever candidate promises the most in raises and benefits.  That is going to be the majority voting block.

It's the  same thing we see today.  Trying to repackage the failed economic policies of Socialism by bundling it it with "New and Improved" Democratic rule is a sham.

There are also thousands of other people that submitted their paperwork, paid thousands of dollars in fees and have been waiting years for their ability to become citizens; when did they become less important than illegals? Why are they not getting an expedited path to citizenship over people who clearly broke the law?


And if socialism was so amazing, those thousands of people legally going through the process, along with all the illegal immigrants in the US, would be immigrating to Scandinavia, which likes to consider itself the region of democratic socialism; yet they don't. Instead, they choose to come here.

Doesn't sound a whole lot different than what we have today in terms of the government vs choice of the people.  In a democratic socialist nation the economy may rest in control by the government but the government still rests in control of the people. You might say that it is not in true control of the people because of uneducated voters or unions or special interest groups etc etc etc. Also that we don't get to vote on everything the government does, but none of that is any different than the way we have it now, it would seem that nothing at the government level would change in terms of control.

Could it be because we have one of the best Democratic Socialist systems in the world ?

Food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing, Quest (or whatever they call it now) health care.....

Soon to be amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Now I'm kinda confused. 

Are we quasi-socialist or quasi-capitalist system (or is Luminati in control) ?

We're not Democratic, but Constitutional Representative gubment.

Democracy would lead to Tyranny of the Majority.
Hope they don't put any more referendums on our ballots.
Would hate to be a part of Tyranny.

What is our system of gubment ?
Cause it sounds like it needs a new name.

Thank God we have the Constitution !
Let's fight like hell to protect it.

P.S. Good discussion guys. 

maybe, it's just time? a short read on political/economic cycles and waves calculated throughout our history by martin armstrong.


http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/its-just-time-martin-armstrong.pdf

Yes they are; they are all here ILLEGALLY, as in they broke the law by coming here in whatever fashion they did and continue to break the law by not going through the standard immigration process to obtain citizenship for themselves and their children.

You see, you have a conflict of principle. The principle is that either you support people following the law or you don't. You shouldn't be judging them by the content of their character, but rather their adherence to the law.

If you support illegal immigrants, then subsequently you should be supporting all criminals, regardless of how heinous the crime. Why? Because you support someone breaking the law.

If you don't support criminals but support illegal immigrants, then you have a biased outlook based on subjective emotions rather than objective facts. 

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.

The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.

The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right — we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Could it be because we have one of the best Democratic Socialist systems in the world ?

Food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing, Quest (or whatever they call it now) health care.....

Soon to be amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I support drug rehab programs for criminals.

Your position does not represent a realistic solution for all illegals though. Take for example those who came here as small children illegally. They had no choice or intent in the matter. America is the only country they have ever known and what happens if you deport them back to a country where they don't have any family and cannot speak the language? Not saying deportation doesn't have a place in the discussion but it is not a one size fits all answer.

And people are fleeing to socialist countries as well, not just America. Many European countries are having problems with immigration now and they are more socialistic than the USA. Sometimes they might be trying for the best life or best economic system but sometimes they are just trying to escape to anywhere better.