Oh, those horrible immigrants


PDA






telomerase
January 8, 2006, 04:21 PM
It isn't the immigrants that give Aid To Dependent Dictators (http://http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker1.html).

It isn't the immigrants that tax you to support the price of cocaine (http://http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker1.html).

It isn't the immigrants that keep us dependent on foreign oil (http://http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker14.html)... then complain about Global Warming.

I lived in Dallas for 13 years. The immigrants I knew were all hard-working and honest. Every person who lied to me or stole from me was a "native" (i.e., a second- or third-generation immigrant).

You 'anti-immigration' guys are just desperately trying to find someone weak and helpless to blame for what the powerful are doing to you. You might as well just change the name of this board to "Rebuildtheberlinwall.com"; hating poor working immigrants sure isn't The High Road.

If you enjoyed reading about "Oh, those horrible immigrants" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Boogyman
January 8, 2006, 04:37 PM
This country was built with ILLEGAL immigrant labor. Just ask the Chinese-Americans. I don't think the southern cotton plantation owners were checking for green cards either.
Now I'm all for keeping things legal, but if you want to stop illegal immigration then arrest the big growers and ranchers that hire them for 2 bucks an hour. Of course we'll be paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce...
They're not taking jobs away from American citizens. We won't work at these back-breaking jobs for almost nothing without whining and crying and starting up unions.
Walls don't work. Learn from history for once. Can you build a wall to keep out airplanes, submarines, bribed border officials and falsified papers?
Do you want to live in a walled-in country? they work both ways, you know...

rock jock
January 8, 2006, 04:40 PM
I lived in Dallas for 13 years. The immigrants I knew were all hard-working and honest. Every person who lied to me or stole from me was a "native" (i.e., a second- or third-generation immigrant).

You 'anti-immigration' guys are just desperately trying to find someone weak and helpless to blame for what the powerful are doing to you.Well, OK. I guess we'll accept your anecdotal evidence as proof that illegals are good for the country and throw away reams of actual data that indicate otherwise. :rolleyes:

Biker
January 8, 2006, 04:42 PM
Mkay, I'll pay five bucks for a head of lettuce if it means that my taxes will go down, my hospitals will stay open in lieu of shutting down because of non-payment from illegals, MS-13 will be driven out of the country, and I don't have to listen to loud, ****ed up accordian music late at night.
Fair deal, done.
Biker

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 04:49 PM
This country was built with ILLEGAL immigrant labor. Just ask the Chinese-Americans.

Good point. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882, long before most of the Chinese came in.

throw away reams of actual data that indicate otherwise.

No, don't throw away any data. I'm sure you can find instances of immigrants using the welfare system (though not NEARLY as much as the third-generation welfare class, in Dallas at least.) While most immigrants now work, I'm sure that with the right (e.g. Swedish) policies, that could be fixed and they could be as lazy and ill-educated as inner-city Amurricans.

But you might ask yourself why you're so interested in hating those people who might come here to take advantage of the socialist welfare programs. Why don't you put your efforts into getting rid of the white politicians who tax you to pay for the welfare programs instead? They are the real problem, and letting them get support from tribal rivalries just makes them stronger.

Boogyman
January 8, 2006, 04:50 PM
Mkay, I'll pay five bucks for a head of lettuce if it means that my taxes will go down, my hospitals will stay open in lieu of shutting down because of non-payment from illegals, MS-13 will be driven out of the country, and I don't have to listen to loud, ****ed up accordian music late at night.
Fair deal, done.
Biker
Ok, and your job can be picking apples for 2 bucks an hour. Somebody has to do it.
See how many heads of lettuce you can afford then.
Choice: accordian music or rap?

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 04:54 PM
You're right, Telo, we need to take on The Few as well as the illegals and their employers. It's a big job, so we'd better get crackin'.

I don't see anybody bashing immigrants per se, just decrying the trashing of our sovereignty and our laws and pointing the finger at the huge and mounting costs of illegal immigration throughout America.

Illegal immigration is one of the many wedges of socialism. You can see that clearly here in California where the LAUSD has decided to spend $15 billion for new schools, mostly for Mexican immigrants, and Gov. Maria Terminatrix (formerly Arnold the Terminator) wants to borrow over $200 billion for an infrastructure make-over in the next decade. This amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the government and increasing governmental control. Socialism through the back door is what it is.

Sindawe
January 8, 2006, 04:54 PM
You're missing the crux of the matter telomerase. It is not immigration that is the problem, it is the hords of unchecked ILLEGAL aliens in this country that is the problem (along with the overlaoding of tax payer funded social services they use). Last time I checked into the numbers, there are between 10 -20 MILLION of the freaking parasites in the body of the Republic.They're not taking jobs away from American citizens.Tell that the folks who used to do construction work like framing, drywall and plumbing. Tell that to the folks who use to work in meat packing and raise a family. Tell that the to the airframe mechanics and janitors at nuclear power plants.

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 04:55 PM
Choice: accordion music or rap?

Jeeze, Boogyman, this was supposed to an ANTI-genocide thread...

Boogyman
January 8, 2006, 04:58 PM
Jeeze, Boogyman, this was supposed to an ANTI-genocide thread...

Ha Ha...:D What's th' matter, no likey rap?

Ezekiel
January 8, 2006, 05:00 PM
Tell that the folks who used to do construction work like framing, drywall and plumbing.

Tell those folks to not charge me $25-$75 per hour.

Yes, I sympathize that skilled labor trades are now being "cost adjusted" -- and illegal immigration is an issue -- but the entire idea of capitalism is based upon relative worth.

"The folks who are immediately threatened by another taking their job were overpaid anyway." :barf:

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 05:05 PM
Gov. Maria Terminatrix (formerly Arnold the Terminator) wants to borrow over $200 billion for an infrastructure make-over in the next decade. This amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the government and increasing governmental control. Socialism through the back door is what it is.

I think it's already up to $222 billion. So OK, there's your problem. Instead of worrying about the terrible shortage of maid and tomato-picking jobs, focus on robots from the future taking every dime you made and every dime your children and great-great-grandchildren will ever make. (Ever wonder why Ahnold was so intent on banning .50 calibers...?)

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 05:05 PM
God is cruel: we could have had Cuban music, instead we get Mariachi. Ay ay ayyyyyyyy! :D

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 05:06 PM
God is cruel: we could have had Cuban music, instead we get Mariachi.

You're confusing God and the Coast Guard. (The enforcers of Beard Communism).

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 05:11 PM
Comparative Advantage (http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker4.html)

rick_reno
January 8, 2006, 05:22 PM
Comparative Advantage (http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker4.html)

No - those two words are wrong. The correct two words are "President Bush". We don't have to worry about immigration, immigrants or anything else relating to them. President Bush has got a plan. You elected him for these plans. Be happy and forget about this subject - it'll be a non-issue as soon as his plan is approved by Congress and implemented.

one-shot-one
January 8, 2006, 05:32 PM
You're missing the crux of the matter telomerase. It is not immigration that is the problem, it is the hords of unchecked ILLEGAL aliens in this country that is the problem (along with the overlaoding of tax payer funded social services they use). Last time I checked into the numbers, there are between 10 -20 MILLION of the freaking parasites in the body of the Republic.Tell that the folks who used to do construction work like framing, drywall and plumbing. Tell that to the folks who use to work in meat packing and raise a family. Tell that the to the airframe mechanics and janitors at nuclear power plants.

Sindawe, you & i don't agree often but you hit this one right on the head. imo :)

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 05:40 PM
Twenty million now. 50 million in 10 years. We don't need a "guest worker" plan, we need a "Stop Illegal Immigration in its Tracks" plan.

Personally, I think we need a complete moratorium on all immigration until we hash this issue out in public debate.

BenW
January 8, 2006, 05:47 PM
This country was built with ILLEGAL immigrant labor. Just ask the Chinese-Americans.
How many of them came over here illegally to work, and how many came over illegally to collect welfare, food stamps, free medical, and free education for their kids?

Two bucks an hour to pick fruit sounds pretty good. My dad and uncle came over here legally and got $0.25 an hour to pick lemons. Then, since they were legally in the country, they moved on to bigger and better things. There will always be people standing in line to pick fruit and mow lawns, just for a chance to come into this country and get a start.

Those are the people we want to encourage to come join us. Now though, we have way too many "free ride" illegals, which we want to discourage. Don't see anything non-High Road about that.

ken grant
January 8, 2006, 05:51 PM
A contractor charges you $20,000 to do a job.He pays his help $15-$20 an hour.
Between the two of them Social Sec. gets paid,Fed.,State and Local taxes get paid and in most cases Insurance is carried for medical purposes.

Now the same contactor starts using Illegals. He pays them $5-$10 an hour in cash. None of the above gets paid.Taxpayers wind up footing the bills for these Illegals.
The contractor still charges you $20,000 to do the job.

WHO ARE THE WINNER'S HERE?:cuss:

TexasRifleman
January 8, 2006, 05:53 PM
Those are the people we want to encourage to come join us. Now though, we have way too many "free ride" illegals, which we want to discourage. Don't see anything non-High Road about that.


That's how you argue against it all when you don't have an argument that will hold water, just call the other side racist and then you don't have to have a point. You're absolutely right, there's nothing non-High Road or racist at all, but since they have no other argument, that's all we hear.

And for the record, I live in the Dallas Ft Worth area too, and have a totally different experience in dealing with and being around ILLEGAL ALIENS. Remember, it's the ILLEGAL part that we have a problem with, not the ALIEN.

Biker
January 8, 2006, 05:54 PM
Ok, and your job can be picking apples for 2 bucks an hour. Somebody has to do it.
See how many heads of lettuce you can afford then.
Choice: accordian music or rap?
Accordian music or rap? I think I'd chew on the barrel of my 870 while listening to the Allman Brothers.
:neener:
Biker

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 05:57 PM
Now though, we have way too many "free ride" illegals, which we want to discourage. Don't see anything non-High Road about that.

The only way to stop "free rides" is to stop the free-ride programs. You can't do that by building a bigger INS bureaucracy.

Americans don't know history, even their own. In 1905 there was a higher proportion of immigrants in the United States, but a much higher economic growth rate and a much lower crime rate. I say again, it's not the poor immigrants who are putting in the socialist politicians. It's you.

AF_INT1N0
January 8, 2006, 06:02 PM
I'll tell ya what...

I'd take as many workers through the border as wanted to come..

But they have to trade places with a non-working 3rd Gen welfare recipient..

I'd take a 100 million immigrants willing to pick peaches for $2 over the folks that sit in there government paid for house smoking weed and watching satellite TV and bitching about how the FEMA didn't move fast enough to bail them out of whatever hurricane they didn;t have the motivation to get outa the way of...

chuckles
January 8, 2006, 06:07 PM
Longeyes wrote:Twenty million now. 50 million in 10 years. We don't need a "guest worker" plan, we need a "Stop Illegal Immigration in its Tracks" plan.

+1. It's not immigration or immigrants that are the problem, it's ILLEGAL immigration that is the problem.

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 06:09 PM
I'd take as many workers through the border as wanted to come..

But they have to trade places with a non-working 3rd Gen welfare recipient..

There's a practical plan. They can start by trading places with the biggest welfare recipients in order of cost, so Archer Daniels Midland, Halliburton, etc. can get on the boat to Guatemala.

Jeff White
January 8, 2006, 06:16 PM
An immigrant goes to the embassy or consulate, applies for a visa and work permit, enters the country legally and becomes an American citizen.

Anyone who doesn't feel the need to follow our laws is not an immigrant, but a criminal.

telomerese,
Would it be ok if I came onto your land and started growing crops on it without your permission? Of course I would work hard and use the money I made from your land to feed my family. Oh and since I was on your land, working hard, if I were to become ill, I should expect you to pay for my medical care. After all I work hard.

Anyone who enters the country illegally is a criminal. A felon under our laws. As such they are not deserving of citizenship. Personally I think we should treat them as we do any other felon. Lock them up for 5 years, then deport them. I'm sure that KBR could build detention centers on public land in Nevada or New Mexico where we could hold these felons for their 5 year sentence before we deported them. They could work hard to raise the food and pump the water it takes to sustain them.

If they were guilty of any other crime besides being in the country illegally, they would serve their sentence in a state or federal prison before going to the camp to do their 5 year sentence for entering illegally.

A nation that refuses to protect it's borders is not a soveriegn nation. If these people didn't have easy access to the American economy they would take an interest in their own domestic politics and change things in their own country.

If we don't do something now, in 15 years we'll have the same problems they are having in Europe.

If I were in charge our amnesty program would be that all undocumented immigrants had 180 days to leave the country. Any found in the country after that would go to the detention center to serve their 5 year sentence. CEOs of companies that hired illegals would do 10 years in the same detention centers as the illegals working with their hands to produce the food they ate.

Jeff

Pilgrim
January 8, 2006, 06:23 PM
I lived in Dallas for 13 years. The immigrants I knew were all hard-working and honest. Every person who lied to me or stole from me was a "native" (i.e., a second- or third-generation immigrant).
That's interesting. I worked for the Sheriff in a town where perhaps 1/2 the population was Spanish speaking, a good portion of them illegals working on the surrounding farms. The biggest screwing the illegals took came from their 'countrymen' who had been here a generation.

Pilgrim

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 06:34 PM
Would it be ok if I came onto your land and started growing crops on it without your permission?

No illegal immigrant has taken any of your land. They pay rent.

The Federal and state governments, on the other hand, have taken 42% of the land in the United States. Most of this land is not parks; it is being used, often at your expense by the politically connected through the Forest Service, BLM, etc.

But once again, you're up against people with real power. It's a lot easier to blame your problems on Mexicans, Jews, Gypsies, etc. than to deal with reality.

wingman
January 8, 2006, 06:39 PM
No illegal immigrant has taken any of your land. They pay rent.

Not true we the taxpayer pay a portion of there rent, basically subsidized
labor for the wealthy. Who do I blame, our government, the government of
Mexico. However to believe that all illegals come to work is false.

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 07:00 PM
I say again, it's not the poor immigrants who are putting in the socialist politicians. It's you.

That ingores the growing political clout of the illegal alien lobby and the fact that you can expect, if current trends persist, most of these folks to be voting. You think they are going to vote GOP or conservative? No way, Jose: they want fo PROGRAMS for themselves and their children, and pols like Hillary are all too ready to give those to them.

Telo, we all recognize that concentrated governmental power is part of this problem. Who here doesn't oppose Statism? But Government expansion and illegal alien influx work in tandem.

Phyphor
January 8, 2006, 07:13 PM
<snip>, and I don't have to listen to loud, ****ed up accordian music late at night.
Fair deal, done.
Biker

holy crap, you've got that over in Idaho, too? I figured that was just what us western states were 'blessed' with.

good god, if ANYTHING would make one wish for a powerful directional EMP pulse generator......... :barf:

Phyphor
January 8, 2006, 07:14 PM
Ok, and your job can be picking apples for 2 bucks an hour. Somebody has to do it.
See how many heads of lettuce you can afford then.
Choice: accordian music or rap?

yea, but that somebody could be bothered to actually apply for a work visa, then maybe get a proper drivers license / whatnot, as opposed to just jumping the border, driving illegally, and leeching what they can off the system.

Guess that's just too much to ask. Lotta hard work getting that paperwork....

Akira13
January 8, 2006, 07:16 PM
Am I the only person on this forum who likes rap?

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 07:19 PM
Yes.:D

I liked The Iliad. Homer rapped that well. Ditto The Odyssey. All downhill from there.

dcloudy777@aol.com
January 8, 2006, 07:19 PM
I don't think this problem will really be solved until we address the fact that the 5th wealthiest nation on Earth is a 3rd-world country whose natives will walk across deserts and take $2 an hour fruit picking jobs just to get out of...
DanO

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 07:20 PM
and I don't have to listen to loud, ****ed up accordian music late at night.

AKA the musical equivalent of Montezuma's Revenge.

georgeduz
January 8, 2006, 07:25 PM
its not the fault of poor immigrants ,just because are goverment is so dumb.socialist programs is the goverments fault.because only the goverment can take care of us,the whole plan is doomed to fail.here in nj its seems they only give medicare to the mexicans,they always give the poor whitetrash a hard time,making them bring all kinds of paperwork to prove where they live and how much they make.and of coure the mexicans pull up in new cars.but thats our goverments fault.its not the immigrants that must be stopped its the welfare that should be stopped.

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 07:40 PM
Am I the only person on this forum who likes rap?

I like Weird Al's Amish rap. I don't like immigrants with telekinetic power that blow up cities, though, so I guess there's one class of immigrants that should be prohibited, Akira.

Guess that's just too much to ask. Lotta hard work getting that paperwork....

I know a German postdoc who tried to get through the paperwork for five years. Never did get a green card, now works in France.

Remember guys, when Global Cooling (http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html)hits we're all going to be headed south across the Rio Grande.

Jeff White
January 8, 2006, 07:58 PM
telemorese said;
No illegal immigrant has taken any of your land.

If they are in my country illegally they have taken part of my land. I won't tolerate tresspassers on my property and neither would you. If they want to immigrate they must follow the law. If they don't they are criminals.

They pay rent.

I sometimes fill in on a small police depart near where I work full time, covering vactions, sick leave etc. That town has a large illegal population. We, the taxpayers pay their rent, through subsidized housing programs like section 8. We the taxpayers subsidize their medical expenses through medicaid.

Almost none of them have drivers licenses. We subsidize their accidents through higher insurance rates.

And no the solution isn't to give them the rights they would have if they were legal. The solution is to send them home and let them follow the proper procedures if they wish to emigrate. You follow the law, I follow the law, it's only fair that everyone else does or they pay the consequences. that my friend is the problem that most US citizens have with illegal immigration. It's not a racist thing, it's not an economic thing. We are a very generous people. It's simply a legal thing. We would not illegally enter their country and live off thier social programs. All we ask is that they don't do the same with ours.

My ancesters legally migrated from Germany to Brazil to the US on my mom's side and from Scotland to the US on my father's side. All I ask is that those wanting to come here and live follow the same procedures. If you don't, you're legally a felon and are barred...period.

Jeff

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 08:07 PM
No illegal immigrant has taken any of your land.

Not if Morris Dees has his way.

KriegHund
January 8, 2006, 08:13 PM
Ide have no problem if illegal immigrants registered as citizens and paid taxes etc.

Its the unregistered illegal immigrants that piss me off.
Legal immigration is just dandy with me.

Oh, and if they had to learn english- instead of making me learn spanish.

And i dont get what idiotic government foreighn policies have to do with me having issues with the above ^^^^

Lupinus
January 8, 2006, 08:14 PM
They're not taking jobs away from American citizens.
The hell they aren't. Ask any skilled laborer. Walk onto job sites, see who is working it most of the time. Ask the janitors, and others who do grunt work. Sure, they aren't taking the hundred thousand a year jobs. But they are taking plenty o fthe 20 and 30 thousand a year jobs. Not all of them are out there picking your oranges, they are also building your house sweeping your office buildings floor and many things plenty of americans ARE willing to do. They may not be willing to pick oranges in 120 degree weather. But plenty are plenty willing to change light bulbs push brooms and do construction work.

Tell those folks to not charge me $25-$75 per hour.
I'd rather pay the 25 an hour to have it built right and solid then the 10-15 to have it build half assed by guys that can't read the instructions and barly speak the language of the boss. And it is relative, more work means you can chage less. If you used to get three ten dollar an hour jobs a week and now you only get one cause so much work is being taken by illegals of course you have to raise your price to keep your family fed. I make seven dollars an hour, to break even I either have to ask for more hours, or ask for a raise. But I can't break even without one or the other. The amount of work isn;'t going up which means a smaller piece of the pie for the guys being pushed aside by illegals have to raise their prices to break in.

KriegHund
January 8, 2006, 08:18 PM
Ok, and your job can be picking apples for 2 bucks an hour. Somebody has to do it.
See how many heads of lettuce you can afford then.
Choice: accordian music or rap?

If there were no unregistered aliens they would not have to work for 2$ an hour. They would work for minimum wage, or they could start unions. If the lettuce companys chargen an additional 3$ for a head of lettuce, their sales would drop.

SO they would have to quite making Mucho-Denero or they would go out of business.

This country was built with ILLEGAL immigrant labor.

Only one problem using that argument-
The world has changed just a little in the past 100 years.


But once again, you're up against people with real power. It's a lot easier to blame your problems on Mexicans, Jews, Gypsies, etc. than to deal with reality.

Yes, its only a matter of time before the holocaust of the hispanics occurs...(that was sarcasm)

And in a way your right- the problem IS our representattives and our president. The problem with them is that thay arent doing anything to stop immigration.

Stopping illegal immigration wont magicly make the worlds problems go away. But it will make, over time, it so that california does not spend 220 billion on the problem. The immigrants can become part of the solution, not the problem.

We could open our borders up even more than they are now...allow millions to flock to our lands...

But theres a few things i want to know before we do that-
What will millions of poor, unemployed, non-english speaking immigrants do to our economy?
What will they do to our government?
What will they do to our nationality?
What kind of strain wil they put on public education, health care, welfare, transportation, and every other type of government service?

Get enough rats onto a boat full of cheese, and soon enough, that boat isnt going to be carrying cheese as its main cargo anymore....despite the cheeses best efforts to help the poor starving rats.

Akira13
January 8, 2006, 08:18 PM
I like Weird Al's Amish rap. I don't like immigrants with telekinetic power that blow up cities, though, so I guess there's one class of immigrants that should be prohibited, Akira.



I know a German postdoc who tried to get through the paperwork for five years. Never did get a green card, now works in France.

Remember guys, when Global Cooling (http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html)hits we're all going to be headed south across the Rio Grande.

Were you trying to say something there?........ Or should I just take the joke about where my screename comes from at face level?

IndianaDean
January 8, 2006, 08:21 PM
Good point. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882, long before most of the Chinese came in.


Most of the Chinese arrived here and did the bulk of the dirty work building the railroad in the late 1860's.

Marijuana was made illegal in the 1930s because politicians in Arizona stated Mexicans were illegally coming into the country, then committing crimes while smoking weed.

The Latin immigration issue is not new.

Highland Ranger
January 8, 2006, 08:23 PM
I don't care what jobs they take.

They need to come here legally and pay their dues like my ancestors did.

When I think of my wife's family waiting in Argentina for 10 years to be called, and these people waltzing across the border . . . . . it just makes me MAD.

This is not racial or prejudice of any kind as some of the low road comments in this thread are leaning.

It's about I-L-L-E-G-A-L immigration. As in against the law. As in killing the country.

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 08:35 PM
If there were no unregistered aliens they would not have to work for 2$ an hour. They would work for minimum wage, or they could start unions.

Those folks already exist: they are called Americans. They're the people thrown out jobs by illegals.

PCGS65
January 8, 2006, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by rick_reno No - those two words are wrong. The correct two words are "President Bush". We don't have to worry about immigration, immigrants or anything else relating to them. President Bush has got a plan. You elected him for these plans. Be happy and forget about this subject - it'll be a non-issue as soon as his plan is approved by Congress and implemented.
Hey Rick when President Bush dies who are you going to blame all the worlds problems on next? I know it will be a republican but I was wondering which one?:rolleyes:

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 08:38 PM
The Constitution requires the President to safeguard our country against invasion. Not only is Bush not doing that he postures as "welcoming" and "compassionate." If he came out forcefully against illegal immigration and offered a serious program to stop it, we could turn this around PDQ.

The problem with Bush is that he is a very compromised man.

JAMES77257
January 8, 2006, 08:40 PM
If they would come and work and be productive members of society I wouldn't care, but they spray paint on our walls, steal from us, drive drunk ( and get away with it because they are not citizens ), throw ????ty diapers in our streets, abuse our system, and live like ????ing savages. I've watched my nice town go to ???? in the past 15 years. Come live in my town and tell me they should be able to come here.:fire:

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 08:47 PM
What will millions of poor, unemployed, non-english speaking immigrants do to our economy?
What will they do to our government?
What will they do to our nationality?
What kind of strain wil they put on public education, health care, welfare, transportation, and every other type of government service?

Well, in 1905 there was a much bigger proportion of poor, unemployed, non-english speaking immigrants residing in this country. Those immigrants (doubtless including the forebears of many of the anti-immigration posters) made this country the world's economic powerhouse. Of course in 1905 we weren't living in a welfare state. And at least some people put their political efforts into restraining government instead of worrying about poor Mexicans under the bed.

Old Dog
January 8, 2006, 09:04 PM
If they would come and work and be productive members of society I wouldn't care, but they spray paint on our walls, steal from us, drive drunk ( and get away with it because they are not citizens ), throw ????ty diapers in our streets, abuse our system, and live like ????ing savages. Boy, am I glad I live up here ... we got white people to do this stuff for us, no need for us to import illegals to draw our public assistance, drive drunk, break into our houses and businesses, throw trash on our roads or tag our overpasses and buildings ... we just get our local riffraff to despoil our city and overwhelm our social services ...

Can it be it was only a hundred years or so ago that the same sorts of things were being said about the Irish ... and the Italians ... and the Poles ... (etc.)?

orionengnr
January 8, 2006, 09:10 PM
they sought to assimilate. Can you show me some evidence of that in the current equation?

Hmmm...maybe they HAD to assimilate because they did not receive special treatment from political ???????.

In CA, an illegal gets a driver's license, and gets to vote--how did that logic get turned upside down? And what happened to the incentive to do things legally?

The latest proposal by an unnamed Dallas city official (Fantroy) is that the city's "tow the car if involved in an accident and no insurance" should not apply to the "poor" or to "undocumented workers". Same Dallas official, BTW, who was recently indicted for a number of "questionable" acts...

Art's Grammaw was here. Please watch your language.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 09:40 PM
Boy, am I glad I live up here ... we got white people to do this stuff for us, no need for us to import illegals to draw our public assistance, drive drunk, break into our houses and businesses, throw trash on our roads or tag our overpasses and buildings ... we just get our local riffraff to despoil our city and overwhelm our social services ...

LMAO! Boy, ain't that the truth.....

odysseus
January 8, 2006, 09:45 PM
It isn't the immigrants that give I lived in Dallas for 13 years. The immigrants I knew were all hard-working and honest. Every person who lied to me or stole from me was a "native" (i.e., a second- or third-generation immigrant).

You 'anti-immigration' guys are just desperately trying to find someone weak and helpless to blame for what the powerful are doing to you. You might as well just change the name of this board to "Rebuildtheberlinwall.com"; hating poor working immigrants sure isn't The High Road.

I hope that we are clear on the discussion on what is immigration and legal immigrants, and what is illegal immigration and those illegally entering our country. You see, I have not seen much discussion on THR about people people against immigration, I see most discussions here about ILLEGAL immigration. So I hope this isn't a red-herring thread in response to those to try to confuse some to this issue. ILLEGAL immigration and not acting against it is a harm to citizens. Look to any other nation with some prosperity on how they handle this. Think through this.

I am not sure why you think this is justifiable to defend or try to confuse the issue on. Some others may also confuse it, but it should be clear to any reasonable person, especially those who worked hard to legally immigrate to this great country.

Herself
January 8, 2006, 09:50 PM
The Constitution requires the President to safeguard our country against invasion.
Would you please list and quote that article, section and paragraph of the Constitution containing this this "requirement?" I have just checked my copy of the Constitution and I see no such thing. Perhaps I have overlooked it.

Then you can explain how Congress or the Supreme Court has ruled or legislated that unorganized and largely unarmed poor folk sneaking over the border is equivalant to a drilled, disciplined and armed body of men taking hostile action against the government and citizens of the United States which includes crossing the national borders.

--Herself

rick_reno
January 8, 2006, 10:09 PM
Mkay, I'll pay five bucks for a head of lettuce if it means that my taxes will go down, my hospitals will stay open in lieu of shutting down because of non-payment from illegals, MS-13 will be driven out of the country, and I don't have to listen to loud, ****ed up accordian music late at night.
Fair deal, done.
Biker

Hey Biker - you're in the wrong part of Idaho. Come up to Bonner County, ain't no accordian music here (yet).

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 10:18 PM
Boy, am I glad I live up here ... we got white people to do this stuff for us, no need for us to import illegals to draw our public assistance, drive drunk, break into our houses and businesses, throw trash on our roads or tag our overpasses and buildings ... we just get our local riffraff to despoil our city and overwhelm our social services ...

Just wait, you'll get your turn, amigos.

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 10:29 PM
Then you can explain how Congress or the Supreme Court has ruled or legislated that unorganized and largely unarmed poor folk sneaking over the border is equivalant to a drilled, disciplined and armed body of men taking hostile action against the government and citizens of the Unisted States which includes crossing the national borders.

Herself, want to tell me where on Sol3 you live? I'm guessing it's proximate to Never-Never Land.

Sindawe
January 8, 2006, 10:32 PM
Well, in 1905 there was a much bigger proportion of poor, unemployed, non-english speaking immigrants residing in this country. Those immigrants (doubtless including the forebears of many of the anti-immigration posters) made this country the world's economic powerhouse. Of course in 1905 we weren't living in a welfare state. And at least some people put their political efforts into restraining government instead of worrying about poor Mexicans under the bed.Yes, and we as a nation also screened those coming, sending back those with infectious diseases. Ellis Island and its like were not merely "aid stations" for those who had difficulties in the Atlantic crossing. No so with todays illegal alien (http://www.alipac.us/article370.html).

Johnny_Yuma
January 8, 2006, 10:37 PM
I lived in Dallas for 13 years. The immigrants I knew were all hard-working and honest. Every person who lied to me or stole from me was a "native" (i.e., a second- or third-generation immigrant).

So did I. I only spent 7 years there and not 13 so I may be a little behing the curve. I sure did arrest a lot of immigrants, though. I know they were immigrants because I participated in their deportation hearings. Fraud, drugs, murder, etc. Maybe 75% of the people I arrested were immigrants (and no, I don't work for INS). Those guys were great for my job security.

mnrivrat
January 8, 2006, 11:01 PM
I've never been quite sure why those who defend illegals do so.

What can they do that a legal immigrant can't do ??

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 11:14 PM
Yes, and we as a nation also screened those coming, sending back those with infectious diseases. Ellis Island and its like were not merely "aid stations" for those who had difficulties in the Atlantic crossing. No so with todays illegal alien.

And the reason that this worked, to the extent that it did, was that immigration was legal.

rick_reno
January 8, 2006, 11:24 PM
Yes, and we as a nation also screened those coming, sending back those with infectious diseases. Ellis Island and its like were not merely "aid stations" for those who had difficulties in the Atlantic crossing. No so with todays illegal alien (http://www.alipac.us/article370.html).

Not quite right - my grandmother landed at Ellis Island with TB - she was quarantined in a state hospital at taxpayer expense, her four children were distributed to I guess what we'd call foster homes in today's jargon. She spent 7 years in various institutions before she was pronounced well enough to rejoin society. She wasn't returned to Germany. She never talked about it much, just to say it gave her an excellent opportunity to learn English.

mnrivrat
January 8, 2006, 11:25 PM
And the reason that this worked, to the extent that it did, was that immigration was legal.

Immigration is still very legal . If someone enters my house without my permission they are home invaders , not immigrants .

Getting your feet onto US soil does not make you an immigrant - doing it illegaly makes you a criminal oppertunist , nothing more . Immigrants are those that enter legaly looking to become americans.

We have illegals here from many different countries - their loyalty is not to america , they remain in many cases very loyal to their county of origin.

Herself
January 8, 2006, 11:26 PM
Herself, want to tell me where on Sol3 you live? I'm guessing it's proximate to Never-Never Land.

Is this your idea of "the high road" in public discourse?

For the record, Indiana. You know, one of those backward flyover states that trusts its citizens with .50 BMG rifles and will issue any non-felon a carry permit, no training required. And you're a...Californian?

I'm still waiting for you to cite that section of the Constitution in which the president is charged with "protecting the United States from invasion," followed by explicatory language from a pertinent authority addressing how "invasion" in such context means anything other than a military action.

C'mon, this one should be easy for you. Article, section, paragraph, followed by quotes.

You have read the Constitution of the United States of America, haven't you? It's kind of lengthy to be making guesses from memory.


To others: one reason we have "illegals" is because we have quotas for legal immigration -- and they get filled up quickly.

--Herself

Old Dog
January 8, 2006, 11:46 PM
Since you are asking again, herself ... I think that little snippet in Article 2 (Section 2, I believe - do you need it quoted verbatim?) noting that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy ... and the militias of the several states ..." pretty much indicates a reasonable extrapolation is in fact, that the President is charged with the defense of the country ... (disclaimer: which in no way, shape or form gives the President the authority to override any other portions of the Constitution...). And one can also conclude that illegal aliens who habitually engage in violent criminal activity constitutes an "invasion."

Preacherman
January 8, 2006, 11:46 PM
Being an immigrant myself (legally, I hasten to add! :D ), perhaps I can contribute to this discussion.

I don't think anyone minds those who are productive, contributing members of society. I think there is a case to be made for a "guest worker" program to allow those who can indeed contribute to our society to come here and share its benefits. However, the huge problem with our illegal immigrants is that they are far more of an economic burden than an economic asset. Consider:

- Hospitals driven almost into bankruptcy because they are forced to treat those who have no means to pay, or no intention to pay, and are not adequately reimbursed by the government for being placed in this position;

- Schools and universities spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars (in some states, well into the billions of dollars) to educate the children of illegal immigrants, who cannot be turned away;

- Social services provided to illegal immigrants at great expense;

- Billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue lost because most illegals don't bother to file tax returns, and many employers will deduct "taxes" from their wages but neglect to turn these in, because they know they'll never be exposed, since the illegal won't complain;

- Massive overload of our law enforcement, criminal justice, and prison systems (I'd estimate that at least 20%, if not more, of our prison population are either illegal immigrants, or criminals by association with them in gangs, drug crime, etc.);

- Social disruption caused by non-assimilating minority communities who won't learn English, won't adapt themselves to the indigenous culture, and instead insist on their "right" to their own culture (illegally imported or not).

I could go on, but you get my drift. No economic return from illegal immigrants' labor can compensate for the above problems. I'm unabashedly hard-line about this: DEPORT THEM ALL! Impose swingeing fines on any company employing illegal labor. Charge enough for a product to enable you to pay adequate wages to those who produce it, so that you'll have people willing to work in those jobs. Withdraw all economic aid from countries that don't take steps to control their citizens' contribution to the illegal immigration problem. Stop all bank transfers to other countries except for those who can prove that they are legally present in the US. Allow all law enforcement officers, regardless of agency, to arrest illegal immigrants and turn them over to the INS. Deprive the children of illegal immigrants of their US citizenship, on the grounds that the fruits of a crime cannot be declared legal (and yes, if this takes a Constitutional amendment, let's do it!). Deprive all illegal immigrants of the right to State-subsidized education, health care, and social services.

In conjunction with these measures, institute a "guest worker" program that will allow enough legitimate immigrant labor to meet the economic needs of the USA. Insist that such people have no criminal record, and get their visas outside the US, not after they've already illegally immigrated. Ensure that they are registered as taxpayers, and that their continued presence in the US depends on their continued gainful employment. If they become unemployed, they should have a reasonable period in which to obtain alternative employment, but if they don't find another job, they should have to leave, and should not be eligible for social security and/or welfare benefits. They should have access to education, health care, etc. for their families, but should be required to fund their own health insurance for this purpose (and/or participate in an employer health care program). In other words, they should be an economic asset to the USA, not an economic burden.

Harsh? Perhaps... but realistic, I think.

Spiggy
January 8, 2006, 11:57 PM
*brain fart* I see the US as this awesome huge loft party where all of us have either stood in line or were here when it started...
the goverment is the security detail watching the doors and checks ID's...
now with illegal immigration, it's like troublemakers or underaged people trying to sneak in from the backdoor...
And canada is our neighbours upstairs that periodically will bang on the walls to try to get us to turn down the music.

Edit! *another brain fart* To fix our overcrowded prisons, I suggest we build them over golf courses! you can whack a ball with your freind on your lawn, put that million acres to good use keeping the felons out of our streets

wingman
January 9, 2006, 12:00 AM
I've never been quite sure why those who defend illegals do so.

What can they do that a legal immigrant can't do ??


1-Normally because they hire them.


2-Work as slave labor without benefits.

bearmgc
January 9, 2006, 12:05 AM
Not seeing the dangers of illegal immigration especially in light of active terrorism, must be the result of some kind of compartmentalized, insulated existence, no sarcasm intended. I'm at a loss for words at this point.:what:

carlrodd
January 9, 2006, 12:05 AM
I'll tell ya what...

I'd take as many workers through the border as wanted to come..

But they have to trade places with a non-working 3rd Gen welfare recipient..

I'd take a 100 million immigrants willing to pick peaches for $2 over the folks that sit in there government paid for house smoking weed and watching satellite TV and bitching about how the FEMA didn't move fast enough to bail them out of whatever hurricane they didn;t have the motivation to get outa the way of...


god, that was a good one. kudos.

wingman
January 9, 2006, 12:07 AM
In conjunction with these measures, institute a "guest worker" program that will allow enough legitimate immigrant labor to meet the economic needs of the USA.

While that sounds ok don't think it will help, many don't want in the system
because of criminal records, employers don't want them in system because
it's cheaper and they can abuse them.

Close the border, deport "slowly" with the help of local law enforcement
and then and only then alllow increased "legal" immigration.

gc70
January 9, 2006, 12:27 AM
by odysseus:
So I hope this isn't a red-herring thread in response to those to try to confuse some to this issue.Yes, this is a red-herring thread, but it is intended to provide telomerase with a platform to complain about the government.

by telomerase:
Why don't you put your efforts into getting rid of the white politicians who tax you to pay for the welfare programs instead?
==========
The only way to stop "free rides" is to stop the free-ride programs. You can't do that by building a bigger INS bureaucracy.
==========
I say again, it's not the poor immigrants who are putting in the socialist politicians. It's you.
==========
There's a practical plan. They can start by trading places with the biggest welfare recipients in order of cost, so Archer Daniels Midland, Halliburton, etc. can get on the boat to Guatemala.
==========
The Federal and state governments, on the other hand, have taken 42% of the land in the United States. Most of this land is not parks; it is being used, often at your expense by the politically connected through the Forest Service, BLM, etc.
==========
But once again, you're up against people with real power. It's a lot easier to blame your problems on Mexicans, Jews, Gypsies, etc. than to deal with reality.
==========
Of course in 1905 we weren't living in a welfare state. And at least some people put their political efforts into restraining government instead of worrying about poor Mexicans under the bed.

telomerase, if you would stop ignoring everyone else's responses, you would see that you have no basis for your "anti-immigration" claims. Nearly every poster has made it clear that immigration is good, but illegal entry into the US is bad. I also unapologetically hold that view.

Herself
January 9, 2006, 12:29 AM
Since you are asking again, herself ... I think that little snippet in Article 2 (Section 2, I believe - do you need it quoted verbatim?) noting that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy ... and the militias of the several states ..." pretty much indicates a reasonable extrapolation is in fact, that the President is charged with the defense of the country ... (disclaimer: which in no way, shape or form gives the President the authority to override any other portions of the Constitution...). And one can also conclude that illegal aliens who habitually engage in violent criminal activity constitutes an "invasion."
Already read it. Don't see the word "defense." Don't see where "illegal aliens who habitually engage in violent criminal activity" would justify violation of the Constitutional limitations on the use of the Armed Services as police. Originally, there was to be no standing Army at the Federal level, so "defense" -- already a somewhat subjective interpretation of the text -- in the proactive form being argued here would be just a bit tricky to implement.

As I recall, the last time the Feds sent soldiers to "help out" along the U. S.-Mexico border (I do not recall if this was under the administration of the elder Mr. Bush or that of Mr. Clinton), one result was the mistaken shooting of a teeneager herding sheep. Makes one feel safer just to hear it, doesn't it?

--Herself

gc70
January 9, 2006, 12:40 AM
And the first time the US sent soldiers to "help out" along the U.S.-Mexico border, we ended up rearranging Mexico's government and borders. :evil:

gc70
January 9, 2006, 12:49 AM
herself, in response to your question about Presidential authority and responsibility to prevent illegal immigration:

The Constitution, Article II, Section 3:...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...Whether or not you subscribe to the characterization of illegal immigration as an invasion, the "illegal" aspect remains.

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 01:13 AM
unorganized and largely unarmed poor folk sneaking over the border is equivalant to a drilled, disciplined and armed body of men taking hostile action against the government and citizens of the United States which includes crossing the national borders.

Herself, I said you appeared to live near Never-Never Land because your vision of illegal aliens seems so, well, benign. Perhaps you don't know that the LAPD--yes, I live in California, in Los Angeles, specifically--estimates that 60 per cent of L.A. gang members are illegal aliens, that gov't statistics indicate 30 per cent of our Federal prison inmates are illegal aliens. I don't need to go into, again, the financial hit we are all taking because of illegal immigration?

Maybe life in Indiana--I have no dislike of Indiana, why should I?--is free of the impact of illegal immigration. Come to L.A.--it's a nice place to visit--and spend some time looking around. See what you think; then report back to the gang on THR.

I was away for a while. Old Dog gave you the answer I'd have given you. Thank you, Old Dog. Illegal aliens are, pure and simple, foreign invaders.

stealthmode
January 9, 2006, 01:39 AM
i like accordian music

Sindawe
January 9, 2006, 01:40 AM
Not quite right - my grandmother landed at Ellis Island with TB - she was quarantined in a state hospital at taxpayer expense, her four children were distributed to I guess what we'd call foster homes in today's jargon. She spent 7 years in various institutions before she was pronounced well enough to rejoin society. She wasn't returned to Germany. She never talked about it much, just to say it gave her an excellent opportunity to learn English. Not quite right RR. As I have show before in these august pages, this nation refused entry to a significant of those who would join us. Search and you will find the data here. (hint: The handle WildAlaska is a usefull search term). Your GMother was one of the FEW lucky ones.

Live long enough an everybody looks like somebody you knew....And the first time the US sent soldiers to "help out" along the U.S.-Mexico border, we ended up rearranging Mexico's government and borders.Hmmm...what was it said about those who foreget history?

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 01:46 AM
i like accordian music

I have a "Lady of Spain" recording I can sell you. Cheap.:D

rick_reno
January 9, 2006, 01:49 AM
Not quite right RR. As I have show before in these august pages, this nation refused entry to a significant of those who would join us. Search and you will find the data here. (hint: The handle WildAlaska is a usefull search term). Your GMother was one of the FEW lucky ones.

Live long enough an everybody looks like somebody you knew....Hmmm...what was it said about those who foreget history?

Sorry - I'm not biting on a reference to something you won't post a link to.

You posted "Yes, and we as a nation also screened those coming, sending back those with infectious diseases." I posted the story of my relative, who arrived with an infectious disease - and was NOT returned. I need to see statistics on how many arrived with infectious diseases and how many of those were returned. Post them - then we'll talk.

CAnnoneer
January 9, 2006, 01:58 AM
Telomerase,

The above posters gave substantive responses to your assertations. I would add two small points:

1)
A country without laws is anarchy. We have good laws that should be enforced, including by "compassionate" POTUS's. If the current laws are deemed unsatisfactory, there are perfectly legal ways to change them in accordance with the wishes of the majority. And there is the kicker. The majority of the population is not yet sufficiently drugged on socialism, white guilt, globalism, etc. to ignore practicality and their own interests. That is why we see such a plethora of clownish tricks performed in all branches of government and in the media to try to cloud issues and somehow circumvent the strict adherence to the law.

2)
Judging by your name and the mention of the postdoc, I must conclude you are a researcher in academia (molecular biology?). Please reconcile for us your likely exclusive dependence on .gov grants with your vehement anti-gov stance. After all, working in your field would have been nigh impossible in 1905.

Herself,

1)
Do you seriously believe POTUS has no responsibility to defend the country taking into account his duties delineated by the Constitution?

2)
Would you require a stranger, that breaks into your house and uses/takes your property, to be armed to the teeth before you declare him a burglar and call the police? Would you play semantics and consider his plight as he makes away with your plasma TV?

gc70
January 9, 2006, 02:15 AM
You (Sindawe) posted "Yes, and we as a nation also screened those coming, sending back those with infectious diseases." I posted the story of my relative, who arrived with an infectious disease - and was NOT returned. I need to see statistics on how many arrived with infectious diseases and how many of those were returned. Post them - then we'll talk.From the National Park Service's Statue of Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island website: Ellis Island History - A Brief Look (http://www.nps.gov/stli/serv02.htm#Ellis)Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer.
Thanks, rick_reno; your challenge to sindawe prompted me to do some rewarding research that gave me a much better perspective on the history of immigration in the US.

Phyphor
January 9, 2006, 03:42 AM
If they would come and work and be productive members of society I wouldn't care, but they spray paint on our walls, steal from us, drive drunk ( and get away with it because they are not citizens ), throw ????ty diapers in our streets,

I take it you've been to Earlimart too, eh? :banghead: :barf: :fire:

odysseus
January 9, 2006, 05:43 AM
To others: one reason we have "illegals" is because we have quotas for legal immigration -- and they get filled up quickly.

Yes, and there is a solid reason for that. That is why there is a LEGAL way to reside and work in our country, and those who feel they need to cheat the system are illegal. This doesn't justify it for any reason. I also might venture to say there are some who (maybe for criminal records) would not legally sign up anyway do to the screening process.

Quotas can adjust. However our ambivalence for this abuse of our immigration system should not be tolerated. I am sure you are not justifying illegal action because people don't like the rules. For an example, if I wanted to immigrate to Canada (or any prosperous country) - but they told me to wait, and then I just snuck across the border anyway and squatted there, what do you think Canadians would think? Why should we be different?

If you want to be a citizen here, I want you to swear allegiance to the USA. Not sneak in and then try to get amnesty since you hid out here for years...

1911 guy
January 9, 2006, 06:21 AM
Forgive me if I'm repeating something already said, but the original poster is missing the point. Legal immigration is not a problem. We're all here, with few exceptions, because of it. Don't muddy the water and stir the pot by confusing the two issues. One person stands in line to do the paperwork and improve his situation in life, the other sneaks across a border against the law, steals your tax money, takes your job, is responsible for a disproportionate percentage of violent crime and demands that you change your way of life to suit him. How dare you put them on the same level. I work with several legal immigrants and they are just as against illegals as I or anyone else. Yes, there are problems within we must deal with, but don't push your flawed ideology off as fact or even all that logical.

grimjaw
January 9, 2006, 06:37 AM
we just get our local riffraff to despoil our city and overwhelm our social services ...

Old Dog, +1. Seems like all the folks I knew of like that in Arkansas didn't know a lick of Spanish, Chinese, or any other language than poorly spoken English learned in a public school in the US.

But I agree with the sentiment of deportation for illegal immigration. Could we maybe fine the Mexican government for every deportation case, too?

jmm

Highland Ranger
January 9, 2006, 09:36 AM
Here's another solution - don't do business with people who use illegals.

I just had a bunch of construction work done - it said in the contract, no illegal workers.

If they can't find work, they'll then break and overload the social welfare system. Then they'll stop coming.

Herself
January 9, 2006, 09:40 AM
1) Do you seriously believe POTUS has no responsibility to defend the country taking into account his duties delineated by the Constitution?
"Defense" implies attack. Tell me, do you shoot bums that are "invading" the sidewalks you pay taxes to have built? Are they "attacking" you when they do their various businesses in the corners?

The linking of illegal immigrants with crime is another sort of example; first, it's self-fulfilling (if you're here illegally, you're automatically a criminal) and second, linking criminal activites to the President's job sort of skips a few steps, many of them not in the direct line of command. You do understand why we do not have a national police force in the States, don't you?

The Presidency is a highly overated job. He's not King and he's not necessarily a philosopher. He's just there to deal with other heads of State (read "Kings") and to execute the law as laid down in the Constitution and by Congress. (Thus the executive branch). He's not supposed to get especially creative about it; we have the House for that sort of thing..

2) Would you require a stranger, that breaks into your house and uses/takes your property, to be armed to the teeth before you declare him a burglar and call the police? Would you play semantics and consider his plight as he makes away with your plasma TV?
So, which illegals have been taking your plasma TV? Your analogy is false; illegal immigrants generally are not stealing anything this nation owns. If individuals among them are breaking into people's houses and taking things, shoot 'em in the act as you would any other B&E specialist. But being an optimistic fool sneaking over a border looking for work or even for a handout is not the same as slipping a lock on my house in hopes of finding goodies to remove: I own what I own. Nobody not self-employed "owns" their job and no one "owns" a government or private charity handout.

Your problem is that you very much want the current level of socialism in the States, you just want to make sure it's reserved for you and yours. It's a sort of nationalistic socialism, in fact. Hmmm.


I have never said ilegal immgrants shouldn't be sent home. I simply don't think they are something to become hysterical about. It is clear to me that the observed behavior indicates immigration quotas for Mexicans are set at unrealistically low levels and the "fix" is to drop all such quotas and alow legal immigration to seek it own level. How about it?

--Herself

MarkDido
January 9, 2006, 09:49 AM
No - those two words are wrong. The correct two words are "President Bush". We don't have to worry about immigration, immigrants or anything else relating to them. President Bush has got a plan. You elected him for these plans. Be happy and forget about this subject - it'll be a non-issue as soon as his plan is approved by Congress and implemented.


Hey Rick....

My grand-daughter didn't get the Barbie car she asked Santa for this year.

I'm sure you can somehow work this into how it's President Bush's fault

You manage to do it in every other thread!

:banghead:

USMCRotrHed
January 9, 2006, 10:27 AM
Now I'm all for keeping things legal, but if you want to stop illegal immigration then arrest the big growers and ranchers that hire them for 2 bucks an hour.

OK, deal! We arrest the facilitators of illegal immigration and do what we can to stop the flow of illegals.

I'm not anti-immigration. I am anti-ILLEGAL immigration. How much respect for our country do you think someone will have if they are breaking the law from the time they get on our soil. If we don't enforce those laws, how much respect for the rest of our laws do you think those same people will have.

I see nothing wrong with allowing only immigration into the USA the same way we did around 1900. Re-open Ellis Island type facilities and process immigrants legally. Arrest and deport the illegals.

Or how about this idea. Since illegal immigration helps out Mexico so much, and since they do have large amounts of oil, how about a trade. We take 1 immigrant, they send 1 barrel of oil for each month we employ and provide health care for the "otherwise illiegal immigrants.

Moondoggie
January 9, 2006, 11:18 AM
Preacherman could have listed all of the things he wanted to see happen much more succinctly by just saying.....

Have our Gov't do exactly what the Gov't of Mexico does.

Mexico uses their army to patrol it's southern border. Mexico denies health care, what passes for "social services", and education to anybody not authorized to be in Mexico. Any and all police officers will turn you over to the Federales in a heartbeat if they suspect that you're in the country illegally. Spouses of persons legally in Mexico for work purposes are strictly forbidden to hold a job. What's good for the goose.....

Anybody care to compare/contrast the status of human rights in Mexico vs. the USA?

Small wonder they flood over our borders where folks like Herself want to conduct a cerebral debate about the legality or conceptuality of enforcing our laws.

50 yrs ago "Wetbacks" in the SW were a curiosity to most of us in the US. Today schools in North Dakota are required to spend tax dollars accomodating ESL students. Care to guess what their first language is?

"We the People" through our elected representatives have decided and enacted laws/policies to the effect that only so many persons from other countries should be allowed to enter our country on an annual basis. This is a standard practice throughout the world by almost every country, including Mexico. There is an avenue available for legal immigration into the USA. The people of Mexico have decided enmasse that they will disregard our laws for personal economic benefit, and sadly, so has much of our government and some of our citizens.

hayseed
January 9, 2006, 11:28 AM
The turn of the century/Ellis island comparison has grown tiresome. It's apples and oranges.

The vast majority of illegal aliens are not coming here to be Americans, they're setting up outposts of their home country. Local leaders and polititians are falling all over themselves to welcome them to show how they love diversity, as long as they live by the packing plant and not around the country club.

Anyone who has a warm fuzzy over illegal aliens needs to see what they've done to the town I used to live in over the last 15-20 years. And don't dare say anything about it, cause then you are racist.(Hint: home and business owners are subject to fines if they do not remove Mexican graffiti from their buildings within a certain time period. I kid you not.)

Oh yeah, Biker, forget a nice picnic at the lake around here. You will be subjected to mandatory diversity training in the form of loud @** thumpin polka music from open car trunks. I don't care what people listen to, but lack of common courtesy comes with importing the third world.

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

armoredman
January 9, 2006, 11:41 AM
Illegal aliens are all just poor people trying to get work to support thier familes....bullcrock. There are over 4,000 Mexican National inmates in AZ prisons, over 11% of our limited space, just for them, for various crimes ranging from DUI to multiple premeditated murder. Not ONE of those inmates is here legally. For those disinclined to math, that's a little more than one out of every ten, in an illegal alien. Every one of them, when released, (97% of all inmates are released), will be kicked back across the border...do you think it will be long before they are back north?
I live 60+ miles north of the border, I see the nationals doing scut work, but I also see the gangs, the nationalism they keep alive, basically recreating thier slums in Mexico here in the States, with better cars and louder music. If you want to live here, learn the langauge, don't demand I have to learn YOUR language. You came here, I didn't force you too.
I love LEGAL immigration - my family came here in the mid 1800s, and moved to a community in Minnesota, but were proud Americans, not Norweigan-Americans....or should I claim my "immigrant status", and start trying to get "benefits", too?
A nation without borders, is not a nation, but a mob waiting to riot.

Old Dog
January 9, 2006, 11:47 AM
herself said I have never said ilegal immgrants shouldn't be sent home. I simply don't think they are something to become hysterical about.
To which most of us would respond, it can also depend on where one lives. Having lived in Southern California and Arizona, I'd say ... if not "hysterical" -- certainly something to be deeply concerned and actively worried and maybe even seriously p***ed-off at the government about ...

JAMES77257
January 9, 2006, 12:03 PM
I take it you've been to Earlimart too, eh? :banghead: :barf: :fire:


Ha! Where are you from? I live about 30 min. from there.

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 12:17 PM
So, which illegals have been taking your plasma TV? Your analogy is false; illegal immigrants generally are not stealing anything this nation owns. If individuals among them are breaking into people's houses and taking things, shoot 'em in the act as you would any other B&E specialist. But being an optimistic fool sneaking over a border looking for work or even for a handout is not the same as slipping a lock on my house in hopes of finding goodies to remove: I own what I own. Nobody not self-employed "owns" their job and no one "owns" a government or private charity handout.

Your problem is that you very much want the current level of socialism in the States, you just want to make sure it's reserved for you and yours. It's a sort of nationalistic socialism, in fact. Hmmm.


I have never said ilegal immgrants shouldn't be sent home. I simply don't think they are something to become hysterical about. It is clear to me that the observed behavior indicates immigration quotas for Mexicans are set at unrealistically low levels

And here, for all to see, is the problem...

You live in Indiana, you don't see the impact of illegal immigration. You don't feel it fiscally, and, frankly, you operate on misinformation.

Illegal aliens are ripping off the public treasury, in a variety of ways, massively. They are costing California alone a conservative estimate of $5 billion a year. We are basically running the Los Angeles public school system for them, not for American kids. LAUSD has a yearly budget of several billion dollars and $15 billion in construction plans. Not stealing? I beg to differ.

I think American citizens deserve a safety net, though we can debate how large it ought to be. I emphatically do not think that safety net should be extended to people who have no legal right to be here at all.

Your implication, Herself, that those of us who oppose illegal immigration are somehow Nazis who selfishly want "national socialism" is deeply insulting. The only hysteria I've seen about illegal immigration so far is coming from the pro-illegal alien lobby and its running dogs; they realize the tide is turning and that the 20-year-old party is coming to an end.

Glock Glockler
January 9, 2006, 12:36 PM
While I wish I could take people's posts apart and address specific points I simply don't have the time today so I will try to make things as simple as possible.

If a relative fall on hard times and asked to crash at your place you might be able to accomidate them for a bit, paying for their food and other needs might tax you a bit but you could potentially handle that situation but you cannot support infinite number of relatives that need your support.

It is rather easy for illegals to take advantage of our welfare state and start consuming huge amounts of govt resources that have to be paid for via increased taxes. In my line of work I see people's financial situations every day and it's pretty staggering how their state and local taxes have jumped in the past 5 years alone, and govt programs for illegals are most definately a factor in that.

It is claimed that we need illegals because they do low end labor for cheap wages and are therefore an economic necessity, the flaw with this idea is that if someone only makes a small wage then by default their economic contribution is small. A lettuce picker who makes 17k/yr but then consumes 5x that amount in healthcare, welfare, food stamps, education, prison, etc is an economic drain to those that have to pay for that. This is nothing more than a corporate welfare subsidy to the companies that get the benefit of cheap labor but the people get the cost.

If we keep up the open door we will find ourselves economically strangled and suprassed in the world economy. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state.

Oleg Volk
January 9, 2006, 01:01 PM
Maybe get upset at those who try to expand social services (politicians, social workers, voting americans who want the handouts), because they inadvertantly set up a honey pot for the visitors...

JAMES77257
January 9, 2006, 01:06 PM
Maybe get upset at those who try to expand social services (politicians, social workers, voting americans who want the handouts), because they inadvertantly set up a honey pot for the visitors...


Minorities always blame someone else for their crimes i.e. womans 6 y.o. son shot and killed a little girl at school. She blamed the welfare system for making her get a job, so she couldn't be there to watch him, rather than herself for leaving a loaded gun for her son to play with. ( and got away with it.)

Glock Glockler
January 9, 2006, 01:09 PM
Oleg, they do deserve their share of blame but I think it is foolish to think that illegals are going to vote to cut their own dole benefits. Is someone making 17k/yr going to vote to make it so that he now has to pay for his own services? How do you solve the problem when every illegal that comes in can potentially vote multiple times for a bigger paycheck?

atek3
January 9, 2006, 01:19 PM
The US could build a 100 ft tall wall and summarily execute anyone found without valid immigration papers, and people (yes, mexicans are people too) would still come to the US for the promise of a better life, even if red-blooded (but stupid) americans had it out for them.

Transporting people from socialist mexico to free(er) america, reminds me of the underground railroad... In which case the call to round em up and send em back reminds me of the fugitive slave act.

atek3

JAMES77257
January 9, 2006, 01:25 PM
The US could build a 100 ft tall wall and summarily execute anyone found without valid immigration papers, and people (yes, mexicans are people too) would still come to the US for the promise of a better life, even if red-blooded (but stupid) americans had it out for them.

Transporting people from socialist mexico to free(er) america, reminds me of the underground railroad... In which case the call to round em up and send em back reminds me of the fugitive slave act.

atek3

Bleeding heart,

You obviously don't live anywhere near me.

atek3
January 9, 2006, 01:31 PM
A fact I'm proud of.

atek3

Vern Humphrey
January 9, 2006, 01:37 PM
The US could build a 100-foot wall and not stop illegal immigration because:

Once they get past the wall, even police won't turn them in if they're arrested.

Once they get past the wall, teachers are prohibited from turning them in, if they send their children to public school.

Once they get past the wall, emergency room personnel can't turn them in if they come for medical treatment.

Once they get past the wall, social workers don't turn them in if they apply for benefits.

Once they get past the wall, church groups and others will provide them with shelter and aid.

No wall can stop people if they know once past it they're home free -- and even if they're caught there's no penalty.

slzy
January 9, 2006, 01:38 PM
well,since harry belafonte says millions of americans support hugo chavez socialist revolucion,and bush is the worlds greatest terrorist,maybe these so called immigrants[fellow travelers used to be the term] would better be characterized as infiltrators and commissars.try to make your mind up now,which politicians are useful idiots and which ones are collabarating.

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 01:45 PM
The US could build a 100-foot wall and not stop illegal immigration because:

Once they get past the wall, even police won't turn them in if they're arrested.

Once they get past the wall, teachers are prohibited from turning them in, if they send their children to public school.

Once they get past the wall, emergency room personnel can't turn them in if they come for medical treatment.

Once they get past the wall, social workers don't turn them in if they apply for benefits.

Once they get past the wall, church groups and others will provide them with shelter and aid.

No wall can stop people if they know once past it they're home free -- and even if they're caught there's no penalty.

Very well said. And of course true.

I support a wall but we need to change our policies. Where I live (Los Angeles) illegal aliens are emboldened. They know they are home free and need not fear police action. It's all about the politicians and the bureacrats defying the will of the people.

Johnnybgood
January 9, 2006, 01:50 PM
and the closing of our borders. The guest worker program would work like this. They would apply for and be approved by an American issuing station on the Mexico side. Part of that issuing process would be a background check to see if they have been convicted of a crime either in the United States or Mexico. If they have they don't get in. If in the background check it shows they are a gang member they don't get in, and so on. If they are one of the many hard working men and women who are just looking to provide for their families and are willing to abide by the rules of the guest worker program (They must return to Mexico at the end of the season, or if they can show that they have further work they can stay until that is ended). I have no problem with this. If they refuse to return when their work is done and are picked up here in the United States they are returned to Mexico and are not allowed to get a guest worker pass again.
I am all for building the wall, stationing troops along our borders, allowing citizens to patrol and detain Illegal aliens. We need to put a stop to the gangs and possible infiltration by terrorists into this country.
I work hard for my money. I don't think I should be paying for anyone to sit on their but, Illegal alien, or native American, while I pay for it. The good Lord said "A man works or he does not eat!" Social Security was originally for the working man and woman who had worked all their life and needed the security of knowing there would be something for them when they retired. The bleeding heart liberals saw all this money building up and said "lets make some votes for us, we'll give some of this money to those who can not work and they will vote for us!"
I say get all those who have not worked for thier social security out of our pockets and make them work right next to our guest workers.

JAMES77257
January 9, 2006, 02:04 PM
and the closing of our borders. The guest worker program would work like this. They would apply for and be approved by an American issuing station on the Mexico side. Part of that issuing process would be a background check to see if they have been convicted of a crime either in the United States or Mexico. If they have they don't get in. If in the background check it shows they are a gang member they don't get in, and so on. If they are one of the many hard working men and women who are just looking to provide for their families and are willing to abide by the rules of the guest worker program (They must return to Mexico at the end of the season, or if they can show that they have further work they can stay until that is ended). I have no problem with this. If they refuse to return when their work is done and are picked up here in the United States they are returned to Mexico and are not allowed to get a guest worker pass again.
I am all for building the wall, stationing troops along our borders, allowing citizens to patrol and detain Illegal aliens. We need to put a stop to the gangs and possible infiltration by terrorists into this country.
I work hard for my money. I don't think I should be paying for anyone to sit on their but, Illegal alien, or native American, while I pay for it. The good Lord said "A man works or he does not eat!" Social Security was originally for the working man and woman who had worked all their life and needed the security of knowing there would be something for them when they retired. The bleeding heart liberals saw all this money building up and said "lets make some votes for us, we'll give some of this money to those who can not work and they will vote for us!"
I say get all those who have not worked for thier social security out of our pockets and make them work right next to our guest workers.

+1:)

Sindawe
January 9, 2006, 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by Sindawe
Yes, and we as a nation also screened those coming, sending back those with infectious diseases. Ellis Island and its like were not merely "aid stations" for those who had difficulties in the Atlantic crossing. No so with todays illegal alien. Data is a capture of the Reports Of The Immigration Commision, presented to the 61st Congress, 3rd Session on December 5, 1910.

http://net.indra.com/~kstager/pics/Immigration.jpg

Apologies for the poor image quality, the original doc is a 31MB PDF file, this a jpg capure of one of those pages, concerning the debarrment of immigrants.

We DID NOT blindly accept everybody and anybody RR. We as a nation examined those coming in, and sent some of them back as unfit to join us.

Biker
January 9, 2006, 02:11 PM
Great post, Sindawe. Very informative.
Biker

BenW
January 9, 2006, 04:23 PM
Yes, very interesting, thanks Sindawe. The 1910 number is especially interesting. Double the number debarred from the previous two years, but triple the number debarred due to "likely to become public charges".

Wonder if that's due to an increase in the ease to gain public assistance that year, just a great influx of people trying to get it, or some other reason?

Edited to add: Or hey, if I would have just read the paragraph on top instead of going straight to the numbers, I would have had my question answered by the document itself... :o

ka50
January 9, 2006, 05:12 PM
An immigrant goes to the embassy or consulate, applies for a visa and work permit, enters the country legally and becomes an American citizen.

Anyone who doesn't feel the need to follow our laws is not an immigrant, but a criminal.



You think it's that easy? Just go and get a visa and work permit on top? ha-ha-ha

Gordon Fink
January 9, 2006, 06:11 PM
At worst, the evils of “illegal” immigration are merely a symptom of some underlying problem. However, a lot of emotion and very little logic are directed at this symptom … for reasons that I think are fairly obvious.

~G. Fink

Biker
January 9, 2006, 06:14 PM
At worst, the evils of ?illegal? immigration are merely a symptom of some underlying problem. However, a lot of emotion and very little logic are directed at this symptom ? for reasons that I think are fairly obvious.

~G. Fink
Expound?

Biker

mnrivrat
January 9, 2006, 06:36 PM
You think it's that easy? Just go and get a visa and work permit on top? ha-ha-ha


And who said it was easy , or should be easy for that matter ? The "easy" way seems to be the one that's being used and that's the problem.

For one, it shouldn't be easy . The worst penalty for breaking the law should not be a bus ride home.

One of the main issues for me in this topic is just how much incentive people have to enter our country illegaly . They are getting their needs/wants met by businesses and people who hire them, a government that seems to be paid off to turn their back, and bleeding hearts who have no respect for their fellow americans who have to pay the price.

There isn't even any reasonable room for debate when it comes to the law. What other laws should people be able to break with impunity, and who the hell are the people who think they have the right to make choices for the rest of us on wether the law should be followed or not ?

CAnnoneer
January 9, 2006, 06:46 PM
And here, for all to see, is the problem...

You live in Indiana, you don't see the impact of illegal immigration. You don't feel it fiscally, and, frankly, you operate on misinformation.

Illegal aliens are ripping off the public treasury, in a variety of ways, massively. They are costing California alone a conservative estimate of $5 billion a year. We are basically running the Los Angeles public school system for them, not for American kids. LAUSD has a yearly budget of several billion dollars and $15 billion in construction plans. Not stealing? I beg to differ.

I think American citizens deserve a safety net, though we can debate how large it ought to be. I emphatically do not think that safety net should be extended to people who have no legal right to be here at all.

Your implication, Herself, that those of us who oppose illegal immigration are somehow Nazis who selfishly want "national socialism" is deeply insulting. The only hysteria I've seen about illegal immigration so far is coming from the pro-illegal alien lobby and its running dogs; they realize the tide is turning and that the 20-year-old party is coming to an end.

+1

Call me a Nazi all you like, Herself. Objective reality does not care about insults or categorizations. Eventually, it will catch up with Indiana too, sooner than later. Therein the irony of your position.

<we need a bitter smile cookie>

As far as your claim that I would like to perpetuate the .gov handouts but just keep them for citizens, please substantiate that claim somehow if you can. Otherwise, it is an empty conjecture aimed at discrediting my position without evidence.

Finally, who are we kidding with these ideas about controlling illegal immigration by destroying the welfare state? Does anyone here seriously believe that all the leftist bleeding hearts in the world would ever allow a system under which pregnant or injured illegals are turned away from medical care? Let's face it, both welfare.gov and illegals have to be tackled, but separately. Uniting them under the same hat is a sure way to sap political determination away from any implementation. Or, was that the aim all along?

One thing is certain:
The juncture in space-time approaches, wherein we as a nation would be made to finally wake up and face the music on a number of major issues. That will also involve a painful divorce from a number of self-serving psycho-candy like pan-Americanism, globalism, manifest destiny, pan-socialism, imperialism, multicultural equivalence, and overseas nation-building.

Glock Glockler
January 9, 2006, 06:51 PM
The US could build a 100 ft tall wall and summarily execute anyone found without valid immigration papers, and people (yes, mexicans are people too) would still come to the US for the promise of a better life, even if red-blooded (but stupid) americans had it out for them

Actually, no. People come to the US because they expect the trip over to be worth the increased quality of life they hope to achieve. If the risk of the trip is increased disproportionately to the relative quality of life in the US then immigration to the US will decrease. They'll sooner go to Europe or elsewhere.

Transporting people from socialist mexico to free(er) america, reminds me of the underground railroad... In which case the call to round em up and send em back reminds me of the fugitive slave act

It can remind you of anything but they doesn't mean you comparison is reasonable in the slightest. A great many illegal in the US impose significant financial and other burdens on Americans, so essentially their presence requires finds that we have to pay to support them. Isn't that a form of slavery, when people are forced to give the fruits of their labors to others? Sorry, it seems your fugitive slave act doesn't hold any water, comparing current life in Mexico to the life of a slave in the American south is pretty outrageous. I had relatives in Ireland that were literally starving to death, a condition far worse than life in Mexico, and they didn't break American laws to enter, they waited and starved politely until they were invited in.

My heart doesnt bleed and an open door policy is destructive to the US and no rational reason exists to support it. Suppose everyone in the world not in the US wanted to immigrate NOW, would you support that, do you think we'd be better for it.

Glock Glockler
January 9, 2006, 06:53 PM
At worst, the evils of “illegal” immigration are merely a symptom of some underlying problem

Yes, we all know the welfare state is the biggest causative factor, how do we reduce it while taking in people who are going to be the most disposed to voting for increasing it?

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 07:40 PM
Now there's a question for the ages...

A cynic might propose that people on the dole shouldn't be voting...?

Gun Geezer
January 9, 2006, 08:57 PM
This country was built with ILLEGAL immigrant labor. Just ask the Chinese-Americans. I don't think the southern cotton plantation owners were checking for green cards either.
Now I'm all for keeping things legal, but if you want to stop illegal immigration then arrest the big growers and ranchers that hire them for 2 bucks an hour. Of course we'll be paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce...
They're not taking jobs away from American citizens. We won't work at these back-breaking jobs for almost nothing without whining and crying and starting up unions.
Walls don't work. Learn from history for once. Can you build a wall to keep out airplanes, submarines, bribed border officials and falsified papers?
Do you want to live in a walled-in country? they work both ways, you know...

For you kiddies who don't remember there was a little wall called "the Berlin wall". It DID work. Planes did fly over, legally, from the west to inside East Berlin. But virtually nobody ever hopped the wall and walked OUT. (Edited to be "out" instead of "in". Obviously not too many were trying to IN to East Berlin)

Know why?

Because the commies shot almost everyone that tried it! Darned effective.

Not saying it is particularly "high road", but it is undeniable that if the gov built the wall, posted guards, and machine gunned everyone that hopped over the wall illiegal immigration would come to complete stop.

I do not "hate" immigrants. But I do have a healthy distaste for criminal parasites of all races, nationalities, gender, etc.:banghead:

telomerase
January 9, 2006, 09:20 PM
For you kiddies who don't remember there was a little wall called "the Berlin wall". It DID work. Planes did fly over, legally, from the west to inside East Berlin. But virtually nobody ever hopped the wall and walked in.

No one broke into East Berlin (or the Soviet Union, another wonder in immigration control posted by someone earlier in this thread), Mao's China, or Pol Pot's US-supported regime, because NO ONE WANTED TO BE THERE.

If Bush & his tame Congress keeps increasing government spending faster than LBJ, pretty soon no one will want to come here either. In fact, we may want to get out, so best be polite to the furriners now.

Gordon Fink
January 9, 2006, 09:35 PM
Expound?
No, thanks. I think I’ll let y’all connect the dots on this one.

But to this …


A cynic might propose that people on the dole shouldn’t be voting…?
I’ll just say … :D

~G. Fink

JohnKSa
January 9, 2006, 09:49 PM
I think I could be a lot more objective if I lived farther from the border...

It is becoming more and more financially burdensome for me to pay the increased cost for medical coverage generated by the requirement that the local medical community provide free healthcare to Mexican citizens.

BTW, we're not just talking about people who come here illegally to make a new life. Illegal or not, I can tolerate that to a greater extent. A significant part of this problem is Mexicans who come to "visit" with the express intent of having a baby, getting surgery, etc. and then returning home after things have been taken care of.

Phyphor
January 9, 2006, 09:53 PM
Ha! Where are you from? I live about 30 min. from there.

Tulare. :neener: No great prize here, either.

CAnnoneer
January 9, 2006, 10:35 PM
No one broke into East Berlin (or the Soviet Union, another wonder in immigration control posted by someone earlier in this thread), Mao's China, or Pol Pot's US-supported regime, because NO ONE WANTED TO BE THERE.

It does not matter which direction trespassers are trying to cross. The examples show that the transit can be effectively stopped with simple force. Therein the validity of the examples.

If your point is that by creating a wall like that, we devolve our society or decrease its worth, why not state so in effective concise English? Sarcasm is a waste of time.


If Bush & his tame Congress keeps increasing government spending faster than LBJ, pretty soon no one will want to come here either. In fact, we may want to get out, so best be polite to the furriners now.

There, I agree. However, consider what expenditure we right now have due to illegals. I am certain it is well in the tens of billions at the least, annually and at both local and federal scale. If you then support illegal immigration, then it seems you exchange one bankruptsy for another.

Herself
January 10, 2006, 01:09 AM
[...]Call me a Nazi all you like, Herself.
When did I call you a Nazi? Reading a little much into wordplay, aren't you and Longeyes? Bit sensitive?

Objective reality does not care about insults or categorizations. Eventually, it will catch up with Indiana too, sooner than later. Therein the irony of your position.
"Catch up?" Where you been? Clearly not on U. S. 40 through Indianapolis, where there's a supermercado, carneceria or Mexican eatery every few blocks. (Don't quote me on the spelling). We grow the nation's finest tomatoes here in Indiana (look for the "Red Gold" brand, kids! You'll be glad you did*) along with various other truck-farming, and guess who picks 'em? And does related work? Legal, illegal, who can tell? Many have green cards; how real those cards are, who knows. They ain't from Norway.

<we need a bitter smile cookie>
Or a sour grapes smilie?

As far as your claim that I would like to perpetuate the .gov handouts but just keep them for citizens, please substantiate that claim somehow if you can. Otherwise, it is an empty conjecture aimed at discrediting my position without evidence.
You mean you haven't claimed illegals come here and use up all the welfare, clog the hospitals, etc.? If one is opposed to government handouts, why worry that one group seems to be gaming the system harder than another?

Finally, who are we kidding with these ideas about controlling illegal immigration by destroying the welfare state? Does anyone here seriously believe that all the leftist bleeding hearts in the world would ever allow a system under which pregnant or injured illegals are turned away from medical care?
So, how many hospitals do the leftist bleeding hearts happen to own? Time was, a city of any size had a charity hospital for the indigent, often run by a church or religious order. And there were one or more hospitals that catered to the paying customers.

Let's face it, both welfare.gov and illegals have to be tackled, but separately. Uniting them under the same hat is a sure way to sap political determination away from any implementation. Or, was that the aim all along?
Social welfare is ultimately insupportable. The sooner it goes smash, the better, if we cannot end it by electing legislators who will end it by other means like shuuting down such agencies. You appear to glimpse this when you write:

One thing is certain:
The juncture in space-time approaches, wherein we as a nation would be made to finally wake up and face the music on a number of major issues. That will also involve a painful divorce from a number of self-serving psycho-candy like pan-Americanism, globalism, manifest destiny, pan-socialism, imperialism, multicultural equivalence, and overseas nation-building.
How'd "globalism" get in there? That'd be private business. If MickeyDees wants to sell that slop in every nation on the planet, let 'em. Gak. And "manifest destiny" ran out some decades ago.

Now, let's take on some more "psycho-candy." For instance, the whys of illegal immigration.
Given the chance at legal immigration, don't you think most illegal immigrants would choose it instead? "Illegal immigration" is a government-created problem. By setting quotas on a highly-desirable commodity (legal immigration), the U. S. government creates a black-market niche for those who really want to come here, but can't get in legally.

Here's another morsel: that a border as long as the one between the U. S. and Mexico can be made impervious by any practical means. The Berlin Wall was got around by no few persons -- tunneled under, smuggled through, flown or floated over, etc. -- and it was maintained by a government quite willing to machine-gun women and children to keep them on one side it it. If the U. S. government ever becomes ethically and politically capable of that level of "resolve," it will be a very bad day.
The fix for the border is to so reduce the number of persons who need to sneak over that it ceases to be a cottage industry. Once that's done, a handful of hobbyists ("Minutemen") can round up most of the remainder and turn 'em over to INS for repatriation.

But my favorite so far has to be the bass-ackward statistic. Several persons have written here that "n" percentage of arrestees or convicts in this or that jurisdiction are illegal immigrants, as if that proves somehow that all illegals are bad, bad dudes. Here's a a slice of "objective reality:" even if, say, 60 percent of all prisoners in a Southwestern state happen to be illegals, that doesn't mean 60% of all illegals are criminals. The stat doesn't work in reverse that way. It's flawed reasoning.
Nor is it surprising that individuals in the U. S. without papers comprise a high proportion of persons charged with crimes -- without papers or with minimal papers, the number of legal ways to earn a living are very limited!

The answer is to drop all immigration quotas and "Ellis Island" 'em: check for disease, criminal history (and if the offenses would be crimes in the U. S.) and marketable skills and/or already having money, and if they pass, send 'em on in. They'll assimilate soon enough. And so will the rest of us: the States aren't a "melting pot" so much as they are a stew pot, and every new bunch of immigants has added ingredients to the mix.

I do realize that adding immigrants willing to work cheap does mean some here will be losing those cush pool boy and paper-delivery jobs, and wages in many lines of work will be driven down. That's how it goes; either adapt or starve. I'm on my second or third career and my hubby's on his second.

--Herself
____________________________
* I don't work for them and receive no compensation for the mention. Just a satsified customer.

pax
January 10, 2006, 02:34 AM
Moderator Note

Awful lot of heat on this thread, and plenty of not-so-borderline personal insults which are not acceptable on THR.

If in reading this, you wonder, "Did she mean me and my posts?" -- if you have to wonder, the answer is probably yes. Forum rules at this link (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html) for those who need a refresher.

Stick to the issues, leave the ad hominems & personal comments out of it.

Thanks,

pax

mnrivrat
January 10, 2006, 03:51 AM
Herself wrote:

The answer is to drop all immigration quotas and "Ellis Island" 'em: check for disease, criminal history (and if the offenses would be crimes in the U. S.) and marketable skills and/or already having money, and if they pass, send 'em on in.

I think you have convinced a party of one - yourself . You have a major talent for irrational thinking in my opinion.

Or perhaps, for whatever reason, people who enter our country illegaly are somehow serving a purpose for you. Now why should I pay for your gain ?

As far as your answer to the illegal migration , as soon as you become queen you can impliment your Idea. In the mean time , I realy think you should follow the laws that exist and stop making excusses for those who don't .

pax
January 10, 2006, 03:57 AM
Well, that'll do it.

Closed.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Oh, those horrible immigrants" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!