[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Russell Senior seniorr at aracnet.com
Tue Jun 18 18:08:35 UTC 2002


>>>>> "Scot" == Craighead, Scot D <craighead.scot at vectorscm.com> writes:

Russell> a) look up "tyranny of the majority";

Scot> This is why I support a democratic republic, not a democracy.

A democratic republic isn't really any more protective against a
"tyranny of the majority" than a direct democracy.  The democratic
republic just protects a powerful class with better access to being
selected as the representatives.  The representatives are just as
capable of passing laws that violate the rights of minorities (in the
most general sense of the word) as any other "majority rule" system.

Scot> What did that have to with what I said?

It has to do with you and a bunch of other that might consititute a
majority violating the rights of a minority by requiring them to learn
your language.  In the next 50 years, there might be more
native-<other> speakers here than native-english speakers.  Will it be
okay for them to replace your "official english" law with an
"official-<other>" language and require you to learn it?

Russell> I've heard it expressed.  The rationale I've heard to back it
Russell> up sounds plausible, but I have nothing immediately at hand
Russell> to point to.  Do you have anything to point to that supports
Russell> the opposite conclusion?

Scot> You made the statement.  It was one that defies common sense.
Scot> The burden of proof is on you.  I just called you on it.  It is
Scot> bologna and you know you can't back it up with anything.

Try this (30 seconds with Google):

  <http://www.altenforst.de/faecher/englisch/immi/howmuch2.htm>

which includes:

  Several recent studies were produced by government agencies
  interested in "recovering" the costs of immigrants and non-profit
  groups committed to reducing levels of immigration. The four
  principal new studies are:

    * Internal Services Department (ISD 1992) on recent immigrants to
      Los Angeles County
  
    * Rea and Parker (1992, 1993) on undocumented immigrants in San
      Diego County

    * Governor's Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs (GOIRA
      1993) on undocumented immigrants in Texas

    * Huddle (1993), sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, on
      post-1970 immigrants to the United States

  All four studies find that immigrants impose fiscal burdens on
  governments and native-born taxpayers. The Urban Institute's review
  of the studies finds that they vary in quality, but the results
  invariably overstate the negative impacts of immigrants for the
  following reasons:

    * They systematically understate tax collections from immigrants;

    * They systematically overstate service costs for immigrants;

    * None credit immigrants for the impact of immigrant-owned
      businesses or the full economic benefits generated by consumer
      spending from immigrants;

    * Job displacement impacts and costs are overstated;

    * They omit that parallel computations for natives that, when
      done, show natives are use more in services than they pay in
      taxes, too; and

    * The size of the immigrant population-particularly the
      undocumented immigrant population-tends to be
      overstated. Huddle's (1993) findings are unusual, even in this
      group.

  While all four studies find that immigrants are a net cost to the
  level of government studied, huddle's net cost estimates are
  substantially higher. Huddle focuses on legal immigrants who arrived
  in the United States between 1970 and 1992, undocumented immigrants,
  and immigrants who legalized under the Immigration Reform and
  Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), i.e., amnesty immigrants. Huddle
  estimates that the net cost of these immigrants is $42.5
  billion-$50..9 billion in governmental service costs for immigrants
  plus $11.9 billion in costs for workers "displaced" by immigrants,
  minus $20.2 billion in taxes collected from immigrants. The study
  fails to take into account any positive economic impact of immigrant
  businesses or consumer spending. It also overstates costs and
  displacement effects. Huddle's most significant error, however, is a
  massive understatement of revenues collected from immigrants.

Russell> c) who is to say that maybe they don't want a dime of _their_
Russell> tax money spent on documents written in english.  Do you
Russell> really want to go down that road?

Scot> Does that even make any sense?

Russell> Not really, which is why what you propose doesn't make sense
Russell> either.

Scot> What I proposed makes a lot of sense, you can't even give a
Scot> valid argument against it, which is why you are attacking me
Scot> personally instead of my argument.

You apparent inability to perceive a valid argument when it appears
does not reasonably imply that the argument doesn't exist.


-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr at aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list