BoatShoes wrote:
Eh, I was hoping at least one person would take the other side...but I suppose I will.
1. Perhaps we could allow for temporarily lower labor standards in Haiti and incentivize business' who currently relocate overseas to skirt labor laws could relocate to Haiti to encourage economic development and the United States would have first dibs on Tax dollars. Even minimal labor laws would be better than what are used in developing countries outside the sovereignty of the United States.
Also, perhaps gradually bring them into social programs, etc. over time so as to not greatly burden them.
So you want to allow them into the US as a state and then have lower labor laws, even if it is temporary, there? Yes, that is very constitutional.
BoatShoes wrote:
2. We have a new group of people who would be grateful to be a part of the United States and have a strong sense of Nationalism. When I was in Haiti, all the kids talked about was wishing they could come to America and live in peace and freedom and opportunity. We could bring America to them and we would have a new demographic of hard working Americans unlike the current generations growing up watching Cribs and Sweet 16.
We'd also have fresh bodies who could serve in the military.
#1, these people would probably still feel more like Haitians than US citizens. #2, I am not so sure they would work well in the military. I am not sure what the percentage of Haitians that speak english is, but it can't be that high. They would need to learn the language to serve in the military.
BoatShoes wrote:
3. The United States has been committing aid there for years but with no stake to get anything back. It would make much more sense to invest in the country with the hopes of future tax dollars coming from that investment.
Should every country we send aid to be considered for statehood? There would be over 100 of them. It would also be an even bigger financial burden. The government shouldn't be involved in investing to seek larger tax revenues, it should be provate businesses investing.
BoatShoes wrote:
4. Maybe instead of thinking "More poor people on welfare", think, "more people who could be given the opportunity to live the American Dream and be guaranteed the right to life and liberty and a fighting chance to pursue happiness"
It's nice to say and think, but logically and in reality, this is nothing but a dream and you know it.
BoatShoes wrote:
I don't necessarily take these positions; I just thought it the answers aren't so clear cut as the previous posters have laid out.
For instance, in the basic small moral hypothetical...if some is crushed under a building, most people it seems, would give little care about debt or ruining their fancy clothes or car, or losing money to save that person. If this intuitively seems the moral action, why not the same conviction in the present case.
I understand you are playing devil's advocate, but in this case, there is no positives to adding them to the US, if you ask me.
Glory Days wrote:
because as a whole, we have become a selfish country. we cant even stick it out in afghanistan and iraq to give people freedom, there is no way americans would give haiti or any of those other countries a chance.
Can't stick it out in Afghanistan or Iraq? How long must we be there? Wars and fighting have been going on there for close to two milleniums, should we ust stick it out even though no real progress is being made?
It isn't our job to give people of other countries their freedom, that is their own fight, as it was ours in 1776.
LJ wrote:
rookie_j70 wrote:
The U.S. needs to start dropping states. Michigan is a good start.
Only after Toledo is given to them as a parting gift.
Hey man, lay off Toledo. I live there and I don't want to be apart of Michigan, I'd rather be apart of Haiti!
