 |
||||||||
|
12/21/2002 01:02:00 PM | Jared Alessandroni Aaah! Will write more when I get these cards to their appropriate Yuletide recips, but about the immigrants, I was just browsing and I found this repulsive article - there's something so insidious about the racism and the fear in many Americans. As for the new "agreement with Mexico" (in regards to Social Security) there is something terribly suspicious about it. If anyone knows the origins, or why Bush is suddenly thus motivated (besides his love for Vicente Fox), let me know. I suspect it has much more to do with border control for a man who, during his election talked a lot like the sub-human in the article referenced above. In any case, is it fair for Mexicans or anyone who was working "illegally" to reap the benefits of social security if they put money in? Well, gosh, why in Hell would working be illegal? I can think of a lot of white Americans who could take a lesson from that. We force people to be citizens or else jump through hoops to get jobs here for the sole purpose of protecting our fellow Americans. Well, that's unfair, and it's complete bullshit. Why should we, because someone was arbitrarily chosen by God or a god or some missing variable conception of situation to be of the US, give them job preference? These are people who had life preferences - better schools, better healthcare, etc. But we protect their jobs from Mexicans and other immigrants? Big threat. This being said, simply, I would argue that the original concept is simply inane. As for people receiving Social Security illegally in terms of this system, it's sort of a different thing. Why? Well, what was the purpose of the worker laws? If my very basic understanding of them and then distillation didn't suffice, I'm guessing there are some resources that can further our understanding. But, does that purpose or those purposes coincide with the purpose of social security? I would argue no. Social security benefits have nothing to do with your citizenry or which flag you wave around. It is money that you put in, and later on, it's money that you should get back. It's forced retirement saving, that's all. The idea that we would force it from anyone and not give it back is simply not just. Once again, I think some people are happy to favor the criminal with the briefcase and the Armani suit. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.