By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheRealMafoo said:

You’re preaching to the choir. I am all for leaving Iraq and letting the UN deal with it. I am also for removing our bases from almost all the countries we are in. We have an amazing global surveillance system, and bombers that can take off from the US and be anywhere in 10 hours. Protect ourselves, and let the rest of the world deal with the rest of the world. 


I am the smaller government guy.

As for the topic at hand, your argument is if we can’t stop it all; don’t do what we can to protect the laws. The same argument can be made for speeding. It’s way too costly to come up with a system that keeps every driver from speeding. This does not mean we should stop trying to keep anyone from speeding. Also, it’s a huge revenue generator.

Same could be said for enforcing immigration laws. Thousands of companies break them. We could employ 20 people who could generate millions of dollars for this country by enforcing the laws we have, and yet we don’t.

Why do you think that is?

 

Controlling speeding is substantially different as the task is purely mechanical and objective, AKA unmanned cams can do the job. Alas, inspecting business isn't on the same boat.

Answering your question, because it's obvious: business like cheaper labor. I mentioned in a previous post that one of the side effects of controlling this in a strictlier way is rising the costs of labor for business - which mean those business will either be forced to close down or move outside the states. Neither is a good outcome...

Ah lol you are coherent in your political views. Nice to know... for a second I thought you were one of those who just adhered to the republican credo, no matter how incoherent it is. Indeed, small governments are a good thing.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).