If You Want to Immigrate Here

Cosmo

What if you just want to come here because there are people living here that are willing to hire you so they do not have to adhere to federal minimum wage standards, provide a safe workplace, report taxes to state tax boards or pay workmen's comp insurance and pocket the extra money?
Should those people assimilate?

WaveCameCrashin

scb wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Please explain scb..

The United States has basically been fucking over the people of Mexico for our own economic gain for years. We have done this through NAFTA, through strings attached to our foreign aid, and through structural adjustment policies mandated by the IMF & World Bank. The purpose of NAFTA was to internationalize production and allow capital to flow more freely between Mexico & the U.S. (and Canada). This translates as getting the Mexican people to do all the work for non-livable wages (internationalization of production) while the U.S. corporations get all the profit (freely-flowing capital). We have done this not only to exploit the Mexican workforce, but also to exploit Mexico's abundant natural resources to which you were referring.

In order to implement NAFTA, Mexico was made to comply with World Bank policies calling for the privatization of all land, cuts in spending for social services, and an emphasis on export production. Labor and environmental protections were also weakened. So as to comply with the privatization of land, in 1992, Mexican President Salinas changed Article 27 of the Mexican constitution, the part that had protected communal lands, which were often used for subsistence farming. Consequently, millions of Mexicans were displaced from their land and left unable to grow food for their families. Big agribusiness took over and crop use turned to exports and animal feed. Land that was rich in resources became available for international exploitation. And the people who no longer had land on which to live and grow food for their families were forced into the now less-protected workforce to be exploited by American corporations, oftentimes having to move north to border cities to work in manufacturing plants. Wages in Mexico dropped and the Mexican Secretary of Commerce said it was a good thing because it would attract more U.S. companies - nevermind the fact that the Mexican people aren't able to feed their families on these wages. The rich got rich and the poor got much poorer. So of course they started immigrating to the U.S., whether legally or illegally, looking for work.

As for your uprising, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) rose up on January 1, 1994 - the first day of NAFTA. At the time there was one political party that had been in power for like 70 years. (The party has since changed, but the situation hasn't.) Citing Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution - "National Sovereignty essentially and originally resides in the people. All political power emanates from the people and its purpose is to help the people. The people have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter or modify their form of government." - they took over several towns in the state of Chiapas and essentially declared war on the Mexican government, which they considered more of a dictatorship than a representative government. Their purpose was not to take control for themselves, but to give control back to the people and create a democratic system instead of one where a few rich and powerful Mexicans could essentially sell the land, resources, and people of Mexico to the U.S. The U.S. response was to drastically increase the arms sent to the Mexican military, which they said were to fight the drug war but everyone knew were being used against the Zapatistas.

Thanks for explaining that scb, but don't you mean the U.S. gov when you say the U.S ?.also I thought Obama was going re negotiate NAFTA or was just another lie he told so he would get elected.
Then again why fight for your own country when you can just come to america,wave your own flag,demand that america give you free healthcare,education ,driving prvliges,ect,ect, while putting it all on the american taxpayers. I bet most people don't know that even Cesar Chavez was aginst illegal immagration.

WaveCameCrashin

breath123 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

breath123 wrote:

Once again....

punish big business, they won't hire them.

no jobs, they don't come here. problem solved, let's move on

Repubs and the tea party freaks go on and on about the evils of the brown people, yet when they had all three branches of government tied up they didn't make any laws to stop it.

it's all been about providing cheap labor to business, that's all it's ever been about.

The AZ law is theater, plain and simple. If you think it's anything else, you are a fool the fools call fool.

As a matter of fact the federl law says that they ( the Feds) don't even need a reason to ask you if you are hear legally or not.

If this is the case then why does Arizona (my home state btw) have to come out and look like a bunch of racist assholes and write it like a racial profiling law? And then they come off like they're actually proud of that it is a racial profiling law. sickening.

Politicians blame the individuals because it's easier than blaming the corporate hand that feeds = theater.

I'm glad I don't have brown skin or an accent. I'll keep my birth certificate in my glove box just in case. It's only a matter of time before they come for me.

so I guess the 64% of arizonans that support the bill some of which happen to be latino are racist ?
and the bill has nothing to do with racial profiling. You really need to educate yourself on this subject,because either you don't know a thing about this bill or you don't even live in Arizona or both.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ration_law

:roll: Why don't you just keep your drivers liscence with you instead.

FiveB247x

The two sentences I bolded and underlined can be said about the vast majority of Americans living here and the policians in government in general.. but let's just paint it black and white instead...right?

prfctlefts wrote:

Thanks for explaining that scb, but don't you mean the U.S. gov when you say the U.S ?.also I thought Obama was going re negotiate NAFTA or was just another lie he told so he would get elected.
Then again why fight for your own country when you can just come to america,wave your own flag,demand that america give you free healthcare,education ,driving prvliges,ect,ect, while putting it all on the american taxpayers. I bet most people don't know that even Cesar Chavez was aginst illegal immagration.

WaveCameCrashin

FiveB247x wrote:

The two sentences I bolded and underlined can be said about the vast majority of Americans living here and the policians in government in general.. but let's just paint it black and white instead...right?

prfctlefts wrote:

Thanks for explaining that scb, but don't you mean the U.S. gov when you say the U.S ?.also I thought Obama was going re negotiate NAFTA or was just another lie he told so he would get elected.
Then again why fight for your own country when you can just come to america,wave your own flag,demand that america give you free healthcare,education ,driving prvliges,ect,ect, while putting it all on the american taxpayers. I bet most people don't know that even Cesar Chavez was aginst illegal immagration.

. Im talking about peoople coming here who are not and don't care to become american citizens that are demanding that we give them rights.
what's so black and white about that ?

FiveB247x

Yeah and mine is that there's plenty of people hear who are citizens and add nothing to society in any fashion and suck up the finances as well. Don't vote, participate, pay taxes and many other examples which you complain about non-citizens, but apparently it's fine if you're born here....

prfctlefts wrote:

. Im talking about peoople coming here who are not and don't care to become american citizens that are demanding that we give them rights.
what's so black and white about that ?

WaveCameCrashin

FiveB247x wrote:

Yeah and mine is that there's plenty of people hear who are citizens and add nothing to society in any fashion and suck up the finances as well. Don't vote, participate, pay taxes and many other examples which you complain about non-citizens, but apparently it's fine if you're born here....

prfctlefts wrote:

. Im talking about peoople coming here who are not and don't care to become american citizens that are demanding that we give them rights.
what's so black and white about that ?

No it's not fine, but they are americans therefore they come before someone who is not an american.

tvismyfriend

FiveB247x wrote:

Yeah and mine is that there's plenty of people hear who are citizens and add nothing to society in any fashion and suck up the finances as well. Don't vote, participate, pay taxes and many other examples which you complain about non-citizens, but apparently it's fine if you're born here....

prfctlefts wrote:

. Im talking about peoople coming here who are not and don't care to become american citizens that are demanding that we give them rights.
what's so black and white about that ?

Hippies?

breath123

prfctlefts wrote:

so I guess the 64% of arizonans that support the bill some of which happen to be latino are racist ? and the bill has nothing to do with racial profiling. You really need to educate yourself on this subject,because either you don't know a thing about this bill or you don't even live in Arizona or both.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ration_law

:roll: Why don't you just keep your drivers liscence with you instead.

Crap source btw.

this from the New York Times:

"The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

lets go to the sentence I have in bold and underlined.

if that's true would you not, if you were of latino descent be immediately identified for questioning due to appearance? Would it not then make it necessary to have papers on you to prove your citizenship at all times or face a messy legal entanglement even if you were born here and perhaps never set foot in Mexico?

I don't know if a drivers licence would be enough, but we all know those aren't easy to fake.

how's that not racial profiling? How is that fair treatment of true citizens?

It's just Arizona whipping it's dick out and saying "we're doing the most to curb illegals"

everything, that is except punish the people who hire em.

BinauralJam

prfctlefts wrote:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/if_you_want_to_immigrate_here.html

My grandparents all came to the United States from foreign countries in search of a better life. So what's the difference between them and those poor, downtrodden souls who are now hiding amongst us because they are illegal entrants, illegal residents, or both?

Assimilation is the difference. Webster's defines assimilation as "Sociocultural fusion wherein individuals and groups of differing ethnic heritage acquire the basic habits, attitudes, and mode of life of an embracing national culture."

What the politicians can't seem to grasp is that the majority of Americans believe in legal immigration because that is what has made this nation great. Those who came here to become Americans became part of our national culture, regardless of what other culture may still be part of their DNA. If you come here to assimilate, you will learn to speak English, to pledge allegiance to our flag, to serve in our military if necessary -- to do what natural-born citizens do, because it is our obligation.

If you're not willing to be an American, then go back to where you came from. We owe you nothing. And that goes for those who were born here and believe that our government owes them a free income and free benefits. Government is a group of people who have political authority. That authority does not empower them to anything other than the province of steering our ship of state.

Unlike a real business, the government does not manufacture, grow, or assemble anything. Its sole source of revenue is from the pockets of its citizens. What has happened in recent decades has been abdication by the taxpayers, who leave everything up to the government.

That might be beneficial if we hadn't simultaneously created a subculture of elected leaches who stay in power by holding down the people who they have caused to be down in the first place. What happened when Arizona said to the U.S. Government, "Enough is enough"? A federal representative from Arizona called for a boycott against the citizens who elected him and pay his salary.

Then an appointed Attorney General and the president whom he advises, neither of whom had read the law, said that the nation might have to sue the sovereign state. While they were mulling this over, the appointed Secretary of State went to a foreign country to declare that America would be suing Arizona. Next came Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who proclaimed that she was looking out for the rights of illegal entrants. How about the rights of American citizens?

What part of "70% of Arizonans approve of the law" is a foreign language to these women?

I'm not picking on the Democratic Party; the vast majority of elected officials eventually lose sight of the fact that they are elected to govern, not to rule. Before my conservative friends get their drawers in a bunch, let me remind them that right after Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" swept the Republican Party into power, they began shooting themselves in the foot. And who can forget Watergate?

We as a nation have created this monster, beginning at the local level and continuing all the way to Washington, D.C. "Let someone else do the work; I'm busy making a living" has become a de facto national motto. The Obama administration's rush to such things as an unpopular national health care plan and to denounce a very popular Arizona law are merely symptoms, not causes. They somehow have come to believe that redistribution of wealth is a solution. But that does not hold true for those who have earned even a minimal degree of wealth.

Because ours is an enduring democracy, there is light at the end of the tunnel. While the ultra-liberals work to fulfill their own futures by appealing to the emotions of those who figure they are entitled to a free living, those who the liberals swear need protection are standing up to be counted. And while the loyal opposition is busy playing obstructionist, their popularity is plummeting.

A prime example of how a significant segment of "Americans" think is Mexico-born Tucsonan Gabriela Saucedo Marquez, who came to the United States legally in 1986, became a citizen five years later, and prizes the day that she took her citizenship oath. On April 27, 2010, she voluntarily addressed the Tucson City Council in support of SB 1070, which requires Arizona police to check immigration status of those detained for other violations of Arizona law. She endorsed the new law and denounced Congressman Raúl Grijalva for his call to boycott Arizona. Saucedo Marquez also denounced City Councilwoman Regina Romero for calling a special meeting to promote a City of Tucson lawsuit against the State of Arizona.

Tucson reporter Leo W. Banks comments in the 6/22/2010 Daily Caller: "Saucedo Mercer gave voice to a largely unheard segment of the Hispanic population -- those who treasure the law and understand the danger our open border represents to national security, public safety and the very concepts of sovereignty and citizenship."

There is no one more zealous than a convert, and there is no convert more devout than a naturalized citizen who has forsaken his or her homeland in favor of becoming an American -- one who has assimilated.

Before I offend those who are put off by hyphenated nomenclature, let me confirm that I am an American of Mexican descent (at least on my mom's side). Arizona's only Hispanic Governor, Raúl H. Castro, in his inspirational biography Adversity is my Angel (TCU Press, Ft. Worth, TX), uses the term "Mexican American," without a hyphen. I guess the hyphen is what offends. But I digress.

Opponents of SB 1070, ignoring the fact that virtually identical laws have existed for at least the past three years elsewhere, claim that without cheap illegal labor, we would be paying $10 for a hamburger. When you add the cost of public schooling, medical care, and lost taxes to the equation, we are already paying around $25 for a burger.

They also say that Americans are too lazy to do manual labor. Tell that to the 10% of Arizonans who are about to run out of unemployment benefits.

We may be seeing the effects of a serious effort to implement the Richard Cloward-Francis Fox Piven political strategy that would disrupt our society into a socio-Marxist existence. For those who never heard of this strategy, please google Cloward-Piven. It is a great way for the Pigs to be More Equal!

In closing, I have to note with chagrin and a smile that welfare recipients in California have been using their state-issued welfare cards in California casinos. The machines can't tell the difference. Upon learning of this travesty, the Governator issued a proclamation that all welfare recipients must take an oath to use the welfare cards as intended. Aren't politicians wonderful?
9 Comments on "If You Want to Immigrate Here"

+1 Outstanding.

_

prfctlefts wrote:

scb wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Please explain scb..

The United States has basically been fucking over the people of Mexico for our own economic gain for years. We have done this through NAFTA, through strings attached to our foreign aid, and through structural adjustment policies mandated by the IMF & World Bank. The purpose of NAFTA was to internationalize production and allow capital to flow more freely between Mexico & the U.S. (and Canada). This translates as getting the Mexican people to do all the work for non-livable wages (internationalization of production) while the U.S. corporations get all the profit (freely-flowing capital). We have done this not only to exploit the Mexican workforce, but also to exploit Mexico's abundant natural resources to which you were referring.

In order to implement NAFTA, Mexico was made to comply with World Bank policies calling for the privatization of all land, cuts in spending for social services, and an emphasis on export production. Labor and environmental protections were also weakened. So as to comply with the privatization of land, in 1992, Mexican President Salinas changed Article 27 of the Mexican constitution, the part that had protected communal lands, which were often used for subsistence farming. Consequently, millions of Mexicans were displaced from their land and left unable to grow food for their families. Big agribusiness took over and crop use turned to exports and animal feed. Land that was rich in resources became available for international exploitation. And the people who no longer had land on which to live and grow food for their families were forced into the now less-protected workforce to be exploited by American corporations, oftentimes having to move north to border cities to work in manufacturing plants. Wages in Mexico dropped and the Mexican Secretary of Commerce said it was a good thing because it would attract more U.S. companies - nevermind the fact that the Mexican people aren't able to feed their families on these wages. The rich got rich and the poor got much poorer. So of course they started immigrating to the U.S., whether legally or illegally, looking for work.

As for your uprising, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) rose up on January 1, 1994 - the first day of NAFTA. At the time there was one political party that had been in power for like 70 years. (The party has since changed, but the situation hasn't.) Citing Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution - "National Sovereignty essentially and originally resides in the people. All political power emanates from the people and its purpose is to help the people. The people have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter or modify their form of government." - they took over several towns in the state of Chiapas and essentially declared war on the Mexican government, which they considered more of a dictatorship than a representative government. Their purpose was not to take control for themselves, but to give control back to the people and create a democratic system instead of one where a few rich and powerful Mexicans could essentially sell the land, resources, and people of Mexico to the U.S. The U.S. response was to drastically increase the arms sent to the Mexican military, which they said were to fight the drug war but everyone knew were being used against the Zapatistas.

Thanks for explaining that scb, but don't you mean the U.S. gov when you say the U.S ?.

Yes, the U.S. government. And of course the U.S. businesses. And let's not forget the U.S. people who vote in the U.S. government and support the U.S. businesses.

prfctlefts wrote:

also I thought Obama was going re negotiate NAFTA...

I don't remember.

prfctlefts wrote:

Then again why fight for your own country when you can just come to america,wave your own flag,demand that america give you free healthcare,education ,driving prvliges,ect,ect, while putting it all on the american taxpayers.

Did you read the part about how the Mexican people are trying to fight for their own country but our country is keeping them down, giving them virtually no choice but to come here looking for work? This attitude that the American taxpayer is some big victim of the Mexican worker is such bullshit. It's really more the other way around.

Here were I live we're encroaching more and more into the forest homes of the bears, taking their habitat and food resources for ourselves. And then we get pissed when they wander into the city looking for food to feed themselves and their families. But should we blame them? The situation with Mexico kind of reminds me of this situation with the bears.

_

prfctlefts wrote:

so I guess the 64% of arizonans that support the bill some of which happen to be latino are racist ?
and the bill has nothing to do with racial profiling. You really need to educate yourself on this subject,because either you don't know a thing about this bill or you don't even live in Arizona or both.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ration_law

:roll: Why don't you just keep your drivers liscence with you instead.

"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey..."

Well here's your first problem with this report: poor methodology. They didn't survey people without telephones. I know when I lived in Arizona most of the people I knew - who would likely oppose this law - didn't have telephones. So right away their opinions are thrown out of this poll. I'd also bet they only surveyed people with land lines. That's gonna rule out many/most of the young people in the state. So who are they surveying then? Primarily older, wealthier, more urban, non-Indian people. That's a biased survey if I ever saw one.

I also wonder if the numbers have changed at all now that people have had time to actually read the law. (This survey was done only a week after it was enacted.)

WaveCameCrashin

scb wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

so I guess the 64% of arizonans that support the bill some of which happen to be latino are racist ?
and the bill has nothing to do with racial profiling. You really need to educate yourself on this subject,because either you don't know a thing about this bill or you don't even live in Arizona or both.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ration_law

:roll: Why don't you just keep your drivers liscence with you instead.

"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey..."

Well here's your first problem with this report: poor methodology. They didn't survey people without telephones. I know when I lived in Arizona most of the people I knew - who would likely oppose this law - didn't have telephones. So right away their opinions are thrown out of this poll. I'd also bet they only surveyed people with land lines. That's gonna rule out many/most of the young people in the state. So who are they surveying then? Primarily older, wealthier, more urban, non-Indian people. That's a biased survey if I ever saw one.

I also wonder if the numbers have changed at all now that people have had time to actually read the law. (This survey was done only a week after it was enacted.)

ok I'll give you that as far as when the survey was done..
So just bcos you know a few people that would oppose it it automatically makes you think that most Arizonans would??
give me a break scb.. :roll: How do you think most polls are done ??

But still the facts have not changed. Arizona's new law does not conflict with federal law. It in fact compliments the federal law. If Arizona is breaking the law the law then why doesn't the federal gov go after the cities like san francisco.or L.A. that have sanctuary cities that are clearly violating the federal immagration law by not enforcing it ? Also Federal law states that the feds dont even have to have a reason to ask you if you are here legally or not.
So let's just be honest scb. Obviously you want open borders.

I have to go to work now.
have a nice day

_

prfctlefts wrote:

scb wrote:

"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey..."

Well here's your first problem with this report: poor methodology. They didn't survey people without telephones. I know when I lived in Arizona most of the people I knew - who would likely oppose this law - didn't have telephones. So right away their opinions are thrown out of this poll. I'd also bet they only surveyed people with land lines. That's gonna rule out many/most of the young people in the state. So who are they surveying then? Primarily older, wealthier, more urban, non-Indian people. That's a biased survey if I ever saw one.

I also wonder if the numbers have changed at all now that people have had time to actually read the law. (This survey was done only a week after it was enacted.)

ok I'll give you that as far as when the survey was done..
So just bcos you know a few people that would oppose it it automatically makes you think that most Arizonans would??
give me a break scb.. :roll: How do you think most polls are done ??

But still the facts have not changed. Arizona's new law does not conflict with federal law. It in fact compliments the federal law. If Arizona is breaking the law the law then why doesn't the federal gov go after the cities like san francisco.or L.A. that have sanctuary cities that are clearly violating the federal immagration law by not enforcing it ? Also Federal law states that the feds dont even have to have a reason to ask you if you are here legally or not.
So let's just be honest scb. Obviously you want open borders.

I have to go to work now.
have a nice day

Dude, first of all I never said that most Arizonans would oppose it and you know it. Why the need to put words in my mouth? What I said - or at least meant to say - was that the populations they excluded would be more likely to oppose it than the populations they included would. And everyone knows that selection bias invalidates (or at least decreases the validity of) research. If they took themselves and their poll seriously, they would have acknowledged this themselves.

Now please clarify your position for me. I thought your position was that the AZ law was the same as the federal law. But now you're saying it "complements" the federal law, which means it adds to it, which makes it different than the federal law. So which is it?

And now about those facts... When this argument started many threads ago I read through the bill line by line and pointed out each part that is incongruent with federal law. I'm not going to repeat myself. But the fact is that it takes liberties not granted by federal law. And sanctuary cities (which you haven't demonstrated to violate federal law anyway) are not relevant. (But I do love a good, "But HE did it TOO!" defense. :roll: )

smg97791

They also say that Americans are too lazy to do manual labor. Tell that to the 10% of Arizonans who are about to run out of unemployment benefits.

Please then, forward this link to every unemployed Arizonian or American for that matter ASAP! They'll hook them up with some work.

http://www.takeourjobs.org

breath123

smg97791 wrote:

They also say that Americans are too lazy to do manual labor. Tell that to the 10% of Arizonans who are about to run out of unemployment benefits.

Please then, forward this link to every unemployed Arizonian or American for that matter ASAP! They'll hook them up with some work.

http://www.takeourjobs.org

they never finish the sentence...

Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.

punish the corporations, the illegals go away.

Cosmo

breath123 wrote:

they never finish the sentence...

Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.

punish the corporations, the illegals go away.

...
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.

_

smg97791 wrote:

They also say that Americans are too lazy to do manual labor. Tell that to the 10% of Arizonans who are about to run out of unemployment benefits.

Please then, forward this link to every unemployed Arizonian or American for that matter ASAP! They'll hook them up with some work.

http://www.takeourjobs.org

:thumbup:

breath123

Cosmo wrote:

breath123 wrote:

they never finish the sentence...

Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.

punish the corporations, the illegals go away.

...
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.

Big agriculture is not small business, Big Meat suppliers are not small business.

unsung

Cosmo wrote:

breath123 wrote:

they never finish the sentence...

Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.

punish the corporations, the illegals go away.

...
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.

Punish them with jail time, not some $100 fine.