It's relevant because that's the logic you're using to attack "illegals". We've instituted systems of freebies based on faux "human rights". So why would you complain when other humans accept the rights we've already said they're entitled to???
Remove the systems of freebies, and you remove the vast majority of the costs associated with immigration.
those are rights or freebies available only to americans here. not banditos sneeking accross the border. shouldn't a country make services available to it's people?
following your train of thought; canada has set a precident for free medical services; therefore they should make those services available to the world because they've instituted an system of freebies.
i'm trying to follow you. maybe i'm just over tired. i'd really like to understand your opinion.
those are rights or freebies available only to americans here.
Really? Then how come they're justified as "human rights", not just "American rights"????
not banditos sneeking accross the border. shouldn't a country make services available to it's people?
A country should make services available to it's people. The primary service they should provide is the protection of life, liberty, and property. However, the new brand of services we provide show no interest to those things.
following your train of thought; canada has set a precident for free medical services; therefore they should make those services available to the world because they've instituted an system of freebies.
I never said they "should". However, I fail to see how they can justify not doing so. If free healthcare is a "human right", how can it be denied to any human?
i'm trying to follow you. maybe i'm just over tired. i'd really like to understand your opinion.
My opinion is very simple:
A desire to work and to live and to find a better life in doing so is the highest of moral aims. Absolutely no one should be barred from doing that.
You're blaming immigrants for the costs associated with the programs you created as so-called "human rights". Being human themselves, it makes little sense to do that. Rather, perhaps you should examine the programs themselves, and understand what you've actually created. You've instituted a system wherein a man is pitted against his neighbor based on institutional dependency. One pays, the other receives.
To deny the basic right of another to find a better life based on their own merits is to invite another to do the same to you. Eliminate your stupid programs and your faux rights. Demand of the immigrant the same thing you'd demand of anyone: earn that which you desire, rather than asking a government to steal it for you regardless of your merit.
Really? Then how come they're justified as "human rights", not just "American rights"????
A country should make services available to it's people. The primary service they should provide is the protection of life, liberty, and property. However, the new brand of services we provide show no interest to those things.
I never said they "should". However, I fail to see how they can justify not doing so. If free healthcare is a "human right", how can it be denied to any human?
My opinion is very simple:
A desire to work and to live and to find a better life in doing so is the highest of moral aims. Absolutely no one should be barred from doing that.
You're blaming immigrants for the costs associated with the programs you created as so-called "human rights". Being human themselves, it makes little sense to do that. Rather, perhaps you should examine the programs themselves, and understand what you've actually created. You've instituted a system wherein a man is pitted against his neighbor based on institutional dependency. One pays, the other receives.
To deny the basic right of another to find a better life based on their own merits is to invite another to do the same to you. Eliminate your stupid programs and your faux rights. Demand of the immigrant the same thing you'd demand of anyone: earn that which you desire, rather than asking a government to steal it for you regardless of your merit.
i've searched everywhere and i can't find anything that says welfare is a human right. even driving is not a right; it's a privelige. please post a link showing where these services are human rights. i've done the research myself the last 30 to 45 minutes and i just can't find it.
i've searched everywhere and i can't find anything that says welfare is a human right. even driving is not a right; it's a privelige. please post a link showing where these services are human rights. i've done the research myself the last 30 to 45 minutes and i just can't find it.
You're misunderstanding me. These things aren't "human rights". However, they are justified by their proponents as being so. Things like healthcare, living wages, education, etc are said to be "human rights". Simply ask around on this board. You'll find scores of people who believe those things are "human rights".
If you want to classify those things as privileges, then that's fine. However, the argument is no different. You've still instituted a system wherein someone else gets to determine the parameters of such privilege. If a poor American has the "privilege" of participating in the welfare system, what's to prevent the definition simply changing to a poor anyone participating in that "privilege"?
Regardless of the terminology, you have ceded control of such privileges or rights to the state. The costs associated with those things, extracted from you via force, is not within your control outside of the democratic process you've submitted yourself to. If the majority wish to extend that privilege to foreigners, you've gotten exactly what you've asked for based on the system you appear to be supporting.
In short, the "costs" of immigration are truly the costs of the faulty system of wealth redistribution. Blaming the people who simply extract the benefits the system is largely designed to pay is ridiculous.
add the words THE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS FUTURE GENERATIONS and we won't lock horns. but then you're off the subject of illegal immigration. illegals can't go to college.
Their children can. I'm speaking of immigrants as a whole. Corporatewhore did not differentiate between illegal and legal with the thread starting post. He/she condemned both classes as being hurtfull to the US. Do illegal immigrants put a strain on social services? Yes they do but they are a small part of the problem. The problem is the system itself. Fix our social services and you will cut down on the cases of abuse by illegals and legal alike.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Their children can. I'm speaking of immigrants as a whole. Corporatewhore did not differentiate between illegal and legal with the thread starting post. He/she condemned both classes as being hurtfull to the US. Do illegal immigrants put a strain on social services? Yes they do but they are a small part of the problem. The problem is the system itself. Fix our social services and you will cut down on the cases of abuse by illegals and legal alike.
we're all immigrants. even the native american indian. or do you think they magically appeared?
i hope to immigrate out of the us before the next civil war; and i expect that soon. we have more people than jobs. more people coming in; and more people being replaced by machines. look at the violence now.
it's time to blow this pop stand.
You're misunderstanding me. These things aren't "human rights". However, they are justified by their proponents as being so. Things like healthcare, living wages, education, etc are said to be "human rights". Simply ask around on this board. You'll find scores of people who believe those things are "human rights".
If you want to classify those things as privileges, then that's fine. However, the argument is no different. You've still instituted a system wherein someone else gets to determine the parameters of such privilege. If a poor American has the "privilege" of participating in the welfare system, what's to prevent the definition simply changing to a poor anyone participating in that "privilege"?
Regardless of the terminology, you have ceded control of such privileges or rights to the state. The costs associated with those things, extracted from you via force, is not within your control outside of the democratic process you've submitted yourself to. If the majority wish to extend that privilege to foreigners, you've gotten exactly what you've asked for based on the system you appear to be supporting.
In short, the "costs" of immigration are truly the costs of the faulty system of wealth redistribution. Blaming the people who simply extract the benefits the system is largely designed to pay is ridiculous.
all i hear you saying is:
"kill them all and let God sort them out".
i'm sorry.
all i hear you saying is:
"kill them all and let God sort them out".
Ok...what I'm saying has nothing to do with killing anyone, or God. What I'm saying is let people sort themselves out first, and let people help others how they choose. It's not complicated.
If the lack of forced institutional social services led to "kill them all", you wouldn't be here since man far predates the existence of forced institutional social services.
It seems you're saying "I can't afford immigrants, so keep them from coming here". All I'm offering is that those two things can be compromised by allowing those people to come here without their existence carrying an obligation for you.
Their children can. I'm speaking of immigrants as a whole. Corporatewhore did not differentiate between illegal and legal with the thread starting post. He/she condemned both classes as being hurtfull to the US. Do illegal immigrants put a strain on social services? Yes they do but they are a small part of the problem. The problem is the system itself. Fix our social services and you will cut down on the cases of abuse by illegals and legal alike.
Illegal immigrants will be a growing problem unless we secure the border, though. There's something like 2 million a year coming in. In 1980, hispanics accounted for 6% of the population. In 1990, hispanics accounted for 9% of the population while now they account for 14.4%. Nothing against hispanics personally, but that's a huge demographic change in such a short time. Almost all of it is from immigration. Many of these hispanics are congregated in the Southwest where they establish hispanic communities. They speak spanish, celebrate Mexican holidays like Cinco de Mayo, and erect statues of Aztec gods instead of learning about American culture.
The problem arises when you realize that the vast majority of America's population growth is coming from poor hispanic countries, namely Mexico. Half of all illegal aliens are Mexican. Their leaders are pushing them into our country, but they want them to stay "Mexican." They want them to keep their Mexican heritage and not assimilate into our culture. And also, guess who they're pushing out? Poor, uneducated people. Those people will come into our country and get jobs that "Americans don't want to take," but if the economy takes a downturn (which is HIGHLY possible), those jobs dry up and those people are starving. What do millions of illegal aliens do when they're starving and they can't find work? They want the government to help them. What does that kind of pressure do to even the most EFFICIENT social welfare system? It bankrupts it.
You seem to think that our social welfare system can be changed to compensate for this massive infusion of illegal immigrants into the country. It cannot. There are simply too many new poor people coming in. The ONLY way to combat their utter failure in our nation is to halt immigration and assimilate these current immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal.
I know you are optimistic that these new immigrants will be educated and go to college, but that is not what is happening right now. Our immigrant population is highly uneducated. Hispanics (even 3rd and 4th generation) are not getting into college in significant numbers, and a lot of it has to do with the ghetto culture that permeates their communities. They're moving more into the african-american culture rather than the european-american culture.
This is a multi-faceted issue and to call someone a bigot for pointing out the racial component is ignorant and gets us nowhere. We need to solve problems not create more.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Ok...what I'm saying has nothing to do with killing anyone, or God. What I'm saying is let people sort themselves out first, and let people help others how they choose. It's not complicated.
If the lack of forced institutional social services led to "kill them all", you wouldn't be here since man far predates the existence of forced institutional social services.
It seems you're saying "I can't afford immigrants, so keep them from coming here". All I'm offering is that those two things can be compromised by allowing those people to come here without their existence carrying an obligation for you.
now that makes sense to me. survival of the fittest. but not one person has told me of a country where you can walk in and say "here i am. i'm here to stay".
now that makes sense to me. survival of the fittest. but not one person has told me of a country where you can walk in and say "here i am. i'm here to stay".
Simply because there are no such countries. The United States does not permit people to cross our borders and say "here I am", "I'm here to stay". They sneak in, that's why they are called illegals.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Illegal immigrants will be a growing problem unless we secure the border, though. There's something like 2 million a year coming in. In 1980, hispanics accounted for 6% of the population. In 1990, hispanics accounted for 9% of the population while now they account for 14.4%. Nothing against hispanics personally, but that's a huge demographic change in such a short time. Almost all of it is from immigration. Many of these hispanics are congregated in the Southwest where they establish hispanic communities. They speak spanish, celebrate Mexican holidays like Cinco de Mayo, and erect statues of Aztec gods instead of learning about American culture.
The problem arises when you realize that the vast majority of America's population growth is coming from poor hispanic countries, namely Mexico. Half of all illegal aliens are Mexican. Their leaders are pushing them into our country, but they want them to stay "Mexican." They want them to keep their Mexican heritage and not assimilate into our culture. And also, guess who they're pushing out? Poor, uneducated people. Those people will come into our country and get jobs that "Americans don't want to take," but if the economy takes a downturn (which is HIGHLY possible), those jobs dry up and those people are starving. What do millions of illegal aliens do when they're starving and they can't find work? They want the government to help them. What does that kind of pressure do to even the most EFFICIENT social welfare system? It bankrupts it.
You seem to think that our social welfare system can be changed to compensate for this massive infusion of illegal immigrants into the country. It cannot. There are simply too many new poor people coming in. The ONLY way to combat their utter failure in our nation is to halt immigration and assimilate these current immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal.
I know you are optimistic that these new immigrants will be educated and go to college, but that is not what is happening right now. Our immigrant population is highly uneducated. Hispanics (even 3rd and 4th generation) are not getting into college in significant numbers, and a lot of it has to do with the ghetto culture that permeates their communities. They're moving more into the african-american culture rather than the european-american culture.
This is a multi-faceted issue and to call someone a bigot for pointing out the racial component is ignorant and gets us nowhere. We need to solve problems not create more.
First of all you are judging an entire ethnic race based apon the actions of a small percentage from a hand full of inner city ghettos. Do you really think that hispanic gang bangers are representative of the entire hispanic population here in the states? Secondly, I never once stated that illegal immigrant deserved social services. I for one do not support illegal immigration what I do not support is deporting them all. A plan like that of President Bush's is probably the best solution to the problem. Third I see no problem with someone keep certain parts of their culture intact. So what if Mexicans celebrate Cinco de Mayo or put up a statue of an Aztec god. Is freedom of speach or expression only pertain to those that share your beliefs. Should we stop celebrating St. Patrick's Day because it is an Irish based holiday not an American one? Should we not allow statues of Buddha erected because it is not Christianity? Illegal immigration is a problem and I will agree with you on that point. The part of your arguement that touched a nerve was when you stated that ALL immigrants from 3rd world countries where hurting the US. As the child of immigrants from a 3rd world country how do expect me to react. I'm someone that has seen immigrant families, and many of them, build a life for themselves and build up their communities. Have you been to South Florida and seen how the Cubans have built up the communities there or how the Ironbound section of Newark, NJ was a dying sesspool and it was the hard work of Hispanic, Portuegese, and Spanish immigrants that turned that neighborhood around and helped spark the revitalization of Newark. Even where I live now, the area was falling to pieces about 10 years ago. Old abondoned factories, houses unkept and rotting away. In comes a large South American and Asian influx into the communty and Kearny, NJ is now of the top 20 communities to live in in New Jersey. They rebuilt the communities that had long been forgotten. Now we have luxury townhouse and a new MLS stadium being built where decrepid abondoned factories once stood and it was all started by 3rd world immigrants. So in short your assessment of hispanic, or any 3rd world immigrant, is largely incorrect. Maybe instead of simply focusing on those that are not contributing to society, you should open your eyes to the larger world and see that the majority are making this a better country.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Simply because there are no such countries. The United States does not permit people to cross our borders and say "here I am", "I'm here to stay". They sneak in, that's why they are called illegals.
illegals and also felons for entering the country illegally. now do we decide which felonies we prosecute or do we prosecute all felonies. do we jail the invader or the guy with a little weed in his pocket?
First of all you are judging an entire ethnic race based apon the actions of a small percentage from a hand full of inner city ghettos. Do you really think that hispanic gang bangers are representative of the entire hispanic population here in the states? Secondly, I never once stated that illegal immigrant deserved social services. I for one do not support illegal immigration what I do not support is deporting them all. A plan like that of President Bush's is probably the best solution to the problem. Third I see no problem with someone keep certain parts of their culture intact. So what if Mexicans celebrate Cinco de Mayo or put up a statue of an Aztec god. Is freedom of speach or expression only pertain to those that share your beliefs. Should we stop celebrating St. Patrick's Day because it is an Irish based holiday not an American one? Should we not allow statues of Buddha erected because it is not Christianity? Illegal immigration is a problem and I will not agree with you on that point. The part of your arguement that touched a nerve was when you stated that ALL immigrants from 3rd world countries where hurting the US. As the child of immigrants from a 3rd world country how do expect me to react. I'm someone that has seen immigrant families, and many of them, build a life for themselves and build up their communities. Have you been to South Florida and seen how the Cuban have built up the communities there or how the Ironbound section of Newark, NJ was a dying sesspool and it was the hard work of Hispanic, Portuegese, and Spanish immigrants that turned that neighborhood around and helped spark the revitalization of Newark. Even where I live now, the area was falling to pieces about 10 years ago. Old abondoned factories, houses unkept and rotting away. In comes a large South American and Asian influx into the communty and Kearny, NJ is now of the top 20 communities to live in in New Jersey. They rebuilt the communities that had long been forgotten. Now we have luxury townhouse and a new MLS stadium being built where decrepid abondoned factories once stood and it was all started by 3rd world immigrants. So in short your assessment of hispanic, or any 3rd world immigrant, is largely incorrect. Maybe instead of simply focusing on those that are not contributing to society, you should open your eyes to the larger world and see that the majority are making this a better country.
i think he's trying to say we should only let in those that can contribute. we've got enough bums and welfare mamas; let in those with something to offer. you need to look past the hatred borne from affirmative action to hear what he's saying. that's what i think anyway.
i think he's trying to say we should only let in those that can contribute. we've got enough bums and welfare mamas; let in those with something to offer. you need to look past the hatred borne from affirmative action to hear what he's saying. that's what i think anyway.
He specifically said illegal and legal immigrants from 3rd world countries. How am I supposed to interprete that? Also how does my reaction to his statement have anything to do with affirmative action?
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
He specifically said illegal and legal immigrants from 3rd world countries. How am I supposed to interprete that? Also how does my reaction to his statement have anything to do with affirmative action?
don't shoot the messenger. i know more people hurt by reverse discrimination then hurt by discrimination. affirmative action has bred hatred by whites against others because THEY get the advantage. back in high school we were all equal. our friends all hung out together; all colours; all races. now the whites hate the minorities because of the advantage.
don't shoot the messenger. i know more people hurt by reverse discrimination then hurt by discrimination. affirmative action has bred hatred by whites against others because THEY get the advantage. back in high school we were all equal. our friends all hung out together; all colours; all races. now the whites hate the minorities because of the advantage.
Why hate minorities because of affirmative action. Shouldn't the animosity be towards the government for still supporting an outdated program.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Why hate minorities because of affirmative action. Shouldn't the animosity be towards the government for still supporting an outdated program.
it should but it doesn't. especially when you're told you're more qualified for the job but the government quota says they have to hire a black woman or they lose the government contracts.
it should but it doesn't. especially when you're told you're more qualified for the job but the government quota says they have to hire a black woman or they lose the government contracts.
In my opinion that's just wrong. As a minority I would hate to think that my ethnicty is what got me hired instead of my ability to perform the job.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
illegals and also felons for entering the country illegally. now do we decide which felonies we prosecute or do we prosecute all felonies. do we jail the invader or the guy with a little weed in his pocket?
Whether a person enters the country illegally to make a better life or to sell drug, the fact that they "illegally" entered the country is a "felony". You jail both and turn them over to the INS. If INS direct the State to handle the matter fine, but and here's the big "but" the federal government should still bear the financial responsible for the handling of illegals by the States as it is the jurisdiction of the State Department's INS to process immigrants, legal or illegal. If they can't do their jobs, then give the States the power to enforce such matters, if not, then compensate the States.
The States should also have the right to compensation by businesses and individuals who are caught employing illegals. If a company hires an illegal and he commits a crime, that company should be responsible for reimbursing the State on all cost associated with the legal disposition of this person. Same for an individual. Think of the corporations that have 100s of illegals working. This would serve as a major deterrent.
The federal government should expect compensation from the country of origin of illegals.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
That's difficult to do when Mexico encourages its people to come here. They aren't likely to want to compensate us in that case.
It doesn't make a difference whether Mexico's officials
--encourage their citizens to illegally enter the US,
--look the other way when they see them illegally crossing the border, or
--have no prior knowledge of them illegally crossing the border,
the fact remains that a U.S. law enforcement agency has custody of a person who crossed the Mexican and entered the U.S. illegally. That makes it Mexico's responsibility to prove or disprove the citizenship of this person, not the U.S. Meanwhile, the final financial responsibility lies with Mexico.
Whether Mexico wants to compensate the U.S. or not is why the State Department get paid to negotiate trade agreements.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
It doesn't make a difference whether Mexico's officials
--encourage their citizens to illegally enter the US,
--look the other way when they see them illegally crossing the border, or
--have no prior knowledge of them illegally crossing the border,
the fact remains that a U.S. law enforcement agency has custody of a person who crossed the Mexican and entered the U.S. illegally. That makes it Mexico's responsibility to prove or disprove the citizenship of this person, not the U.S. Meanwhile, the final financial responsibility lies with Mexico.
Whether Mexico wants to compensate the U.S. or not is why the State Department get paid to negotiate trade agreements.
back in the '70s; i had many friends who wanted to make a quick buck running pot accross the border. it's great work if you can get it. one run could set you for life if you put the money off shore and only drew a little at a time while working a straight job. throughout the years i've heard stories and went to several funerals of those who tried. not one person i know made it in without being caught or killed. the mexicans however have no problem bringing drugs into the us.
my question is:
if the mexican government is there to catch those coming in; why don't they see those going out of the country.
just some food for thought.
Whether a person enters the country illegally to make a better life or to sell drug, the fact that they "illegally" entered the country is a "felony". You jail both and turn them over to the INS. If INS direct the State to handle the matter fine, but and here's the big "but" the federal government should still bear the financial responsible for the handling of illegals by the States as it is the jurisdiction of the State Department's INS to process immigrants, legal or illegal. If they can't do their jobs, then give the States the power to enforce such matters, if not, then compensate the States.
The States should also have the right to compensation by businesses and individuals who are caught employing illegals. If a company hires an illegal and he commits a crime, that company should be responsible for reimbursing the State on all cost associated with the legal disposition of this person. Same for an individual. Think of the corporations that have 100s of illegals working. This would serve as a major deterrent.
The federal government should expect compensation from the country of origin of illegals.
ah yes; the dream world.
first; YOU fund the federal government. YOU don't want to pay the government the money it needs to do this so YOU shouldn't expect them to do the job without proper funding.
second; i have a letter from the CA governor claiming businesses cannot differentiate between a legal and illegal and should not have to incure the cost of investigating. however; an INS bus can pull up to a business and identify a bus load of illegals in an hour or two so i don't understand.
my discussion with arnie was to change the laws making them similar to arizona laws and fine the businesses for hiring illegals using the fine money to fund the deportation of the illegals.
In my opinion that's just wrong. As a minority I would hate to think that my ethnicty is what got me hired instead of my ability to perform the job.
i'm a minority too but i'm still white and don't qualify for shit. my majors are science and engineering with minors in manufacturing and agriculture. in 8th grade i was offered a 4 year scalorship to U of I. when graduating college prep; i was told the money was no longer available because affirmative action.
it's too early here for my fingers to spell so forgive the mispelling.
ah yes; the dream world.
first; YOU fund the federal government. YOU don't want to pay the government the money it needs to do this so YOU shouldn't expect them to do the job without proper funding.
second; i have a letter from the CA governor claiming businesses cannot differentiate between a legal and illegal and should not have to incure the cost of investigating. however; an INS bus can pull up to a business and identify a bus load of illegals in an hour or two so i don't understand.
my discussion with arnie was to change the laws making them similar to arizona laws and fine the businesses for hiring illegals using the fine money to fund the deportation of the illegals.
There needs to be an effective method for businesses to check the eligibility of a woker to work in the US.
There is a pilot program in place now, but few companies are aware of it or use it.
i think he's trying to say we should only let in those that can contribute. we've got enough bums and welfare mamas; let in those with something to offer. you need to look past the hatred borne from affirmative action to hear what he's saying. that's what i think anyway.
You and the c-whore are way out of tune. How about the doctors who come to these countries and nobody respects their knowledge and end up at Mcedees? They don't have anything to contribute or the racists such as yourself and c-whore just don't like them cause they are coloured? It is true that you yankees can't remember the past. I am sure the ancestors who came here all spoke native and contibuted a ton to helping out. And I have read c-whores (whos name spells it all out) responce to the killings. People who can't remember yesterday make for great racists.
If C-whore gets fired should he just leave the country instead of collecting some unemployment before he can get another job. You two do indeed make some funny reading.
Comments
those are rights or freebies available only to americans here. not banditos sneeking accross the border. shouldn't a country make services available to it's people?
following your train of thought; canada has set a precident for free medical services; therefore they should make those services available to the world because they've instituted an system of freebies.
i'm trying to follow you. maybe i'm just over tired. i'd really like to understand your opinion.
Really? Then how come they're justified as "human rights", not just "American rights"????
A country should make services available to it's people. The primary service they should provide is the protection of life, liberty, and property. However, the new brand of services we provide show no interest to those things.
I never said they "should". However, I fail to see how they can justify not doing so. If free healthcare is a "human right", how can it be denied to any human?
My opinion is very simple:
A desire to work and to live and to find a better life in doing so is the highest of moral aims. Absolutely no one should be barred from doing that.
You're blaming immigrants for the costs associated with the programs you created as so-called "human rights". Being human themselves, it makes little sense to do that. Rather, perhaps you should examine the programs themselves, and understand what you've actually created. You've instituted a system wherein a man is pitted against his neighbor based on institutional dependency. One pays, the other receives.
To deny the basic right of another to find a better life based on their own merits is to invite another to do the same to you. Eliminate your stupid programs and your faux rights. Demand of the immigrant the same thing you'd demand of anyone: earn that which you desire, rather than asking a government to steal it for you regardless of your merit.
i've searched everywhere and i can't find anything that says welfare is a human right. even driving is not a right; it's a privelige. please post a link showing where these services are human rights. i've done the research myself the last 30 to 45 minutes and i just can't find it.
You're misunderstanding me. These things aren't "human rights". However, they are justified by their proponents as being so. Things like healthcare, living wages, education, etc are said to be "human rights". Simply ask around on this board. You'll find scores of people who believe those things are "human rights".
If you want to classify those things as privileges, then that's fine. However, the argument is no different. You've still instituted a system wherein someone else gets to determine the parameters of such privilege. If a poor American has the "privilege" of participating in the welfare system, what's to prevent the definition simply changing to a poor anyone participating in that "privilege"?
Regardless of the terminology, you have ceded control of such privileges or rights to the state. The costs associated with those things, extracted from you via force, is not within your control outside of the democratic process you've submitted yourself to. If the majority wish to extend that privilege to foreigners, you've gotten exactly what you've asked for based on the system you appear to be supporting.
In short, the "costs" of immigration are truly the costs of the faulty system of wealth redistribution. Blaming the people who simply extract the benefits the system is largely designed to pay is ridiculous.
Their children can. I'm speaking of immigrants as a whole. Corporatewhore did not differentiate between illegal and legal with the thread starting post. He/she condemned both classes as being hurtfull to the US. Do illegal immigrants put a strain on social services? Yes they do but they are a small part of the problem. The problem is the system itself. Fix our social services and you will cut down on the cases of abuse by illegals and legal alike.
we're all immigrants. even the native american indian. or do you think they magically appeared?
i hope to immigrate out of the us before the next civil war; and i expect that soon. we have more people than jobs. more people coming in; and more people being replaced by machines. look at the violence now.
it's time to blow this pop stand.
all i hear you saying is:
"kill them all and let God sort them out".
i'm sorry.
Ok...what I'm saying has nothing to do with killing anyone, or God. What I'm saying is let people sort themselves out first, and let people help others how they choose. It's not complicated.
If the lack of forced institutional social services led to "kill them all", you wouldn't be here since man far predates the existence of forced institutional social services.
It seems you're saying "I can't afford immigrants, so keep them from coming here". All I'm offering is that those two things can be compromised by allowing those people to come here without their existence carrying an obligation for you.
Illegal immigrants will be a growing problem unless we secure the border, though. There's something like 2 million a year coming in. In 1980, hispanics accounted for 6% of the population. In 1990, hispanics accounted for 9% of the population while now they account for 14.4%. Nothing against hispanics personally, but that's a huge demographic change in such a short time. Almost all of it is from immigration. Many of these hispanics are congregated in the Southwest where they establish hispanic communities. They speak spanish, celebrate Mexican holidays like Cinco de Mayo, and erect statues of Aztec gods instead of learning about American culture.
The problem arises when you realize that the vast majority of America's population growth is coming from poor hispanic countries, namely Mexico. Half of all illegal aliens are Mexican. Their leaders are pushing them into our country, but they want them to stay "Mexican." They want them to keep their Mexican heritage and not assimilate into our culture. And also, guess who they're pushing out? Poor, uneducated people. Those people will come into our country and get jobs that "Americans don't want to take," but if the economy takes a downturn (which is HIGHLY possible), those jobs dry up and those people are starving. What do millions of illegal aliens do when they're starving and they can't find work? They want the government to help them. What does that kind of pressure do to even the most EFFICIENT social welfare system? It bankrupts it.
You seem to think that our social welfare system can be changed to compensate for this massive infusion of illegal immigrants into the country. It cannot. There are simply too many new poor people coming in. The ONLY way to combat their utter failure in our nation is to halt immigration and assimilate these current immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal.
I know you are optimistic that these new immigrants will be educated and go to college, but that is not what is happening right now. Our immigrant population is highly uneducated. Hispanics (even 3rd and 4th generation) are not getting into college in significant numbers, and a lot of it has to do with the ghetto culture that permeates their communities. They're moving more into the african-american culture rather than the european-american culture.
This is a multi-faceted issue and to call someone a bigot for pointing out the racial component is ignorant and gets us nowhere. We need to solve problems not create more.
-Enoch Powell
now that makes sense to me. survival of the fittest. but not one person has told me of a country where you can walk in and say "here i am. i'm here to stay".
Simply because there are no such countries. The United States does not permit people to cross our borders and say "here I am", "I'm here to stay". They sneak in, that's why they are called illegals.
First of all you are judging an entire ethnic race based apon the actions of a small percentage from a hand full of inner city ghettos. Do you really think that hispanic gang bangers are representative of the entire hispanic population here in the states? Secondly, I never once stated that illegal immigrant deserved social services. I for one do not support illegal immigration what I do not support is deporting them all. A plan like that of President Bush's is probably the best solution to the problem. Third I see no problem with someone keep certain parts of their culture intact. So what if Mexicans celebrate Cinco de Mayo or put up a statue of an Aztec god. Is freedom of speach or expression only pertain to those that share your beliefs. Should we stop celebrating St. Patrick's Day because it is an Irish based holiday not an American one? Should we not allow statues of Buddha erected because it is not Christianity? Illegal immigration is a problem and I will agree with you on that point. The part of your arguement that touched a nerve was when you stated that ALL immigrants from 3rd world countries where hurting the US. As the child of immigrants from a 3rd world country how do expect me to react. I'm someone that has seen immigrant families, and many of them, build a life for themselves and build up their communities. Have you been to South Florida and seen how the Cubans have built up the communities there or how the Ironbound section of Newark, NJ was a dying sesspool and it was the hard work of Hispanic, Portuegese, and Spanish immigrants that turned that neighborhood around and helped spark the revitalization of Newark. Even where I live now, the area was falling to pieces about 10 years ago. Old abondoned factories, houses unkept and rotting away. In comes a large South American and Asian influx into the communty and Kearny, NJ is now of the top 20 communities to live in in New Jersey. They rebuilt the communities that had long been forgotten. Now we have luxury townhouse and a new MLS stadium being built where decrepid abondoned factories once stood and it was all started by 3rd world immigrants. So in short your assessment of hispanic, or any 3rd world immigrant, is largely incorrect. Maybe instead of simply focusing on those that are not contributing to society, you should open your eyes to the larger world and see that the majority are making this a better country.
illegals and also felons for entering the country illegally. now do we decide which felonies we prosecute or do we prosecute all felonies. do we jail the invader or the guy with a little weed in his pocket?
i think he's trying to say we should only let in those that can contribute. we've got enough bums and welfare mamas; let in those with something to offer. you need to look past the hatred borne from affirmative action to hear what he's saying. that's what i think anyway.
He specifically said illegal and legal immigrants from 3rd world countries. How am I supposed to interprete that? Also how does my reaction to his statement have anything to do with affirmative action?
don't shoot the messenger. i know more people hurt by reverse discrimination then hurt by discrimination. affirmative action has bred hatred by whites against others because THEY get the advantage. back in high school we were all equal. our friends all hung out together; all colours; all races. now the whites hate the minorities because of the advantage.
Why hate minorities because of affirmative action. Shouldn't the animosity be towards the government for still supporting an outdated program.
it should but it doesn't. especially when you're told you're more qualified for the job but the government quota says they have to hire a black woman or they lose the government contracts.
In my opinion that's just wrong. As a minority I would hate to think that my ethnicty is what got me hired instead of my ability to perform the job.
Whether a person enters the country illegally to make a better life or to sell drug, the fact that they "illegally" entered the country is a "felony". You jail both and turn them over to the INS. If INS direct the State to handle the matter fine, but and here's the big "but" the federal government should still bear the financial responsible for the handling of illegals by the States as it is the jurisdiction of the State Department's INS to process immigrants, legal or illegal. If they can't do their jobs, then give the States the power to enforce such matters, if not, then compensate the States.
The States should also have the right to compensation by businesses and individuals who are caught employing illegals. If a company hires an illegal and he commits a crime, that company should be responsible for reimbursing the State on all cost associated with the legal disposition of this person. Same for an individual. Think of the corporations that have 100s of illegals working. This would serve as a major deterrent.
The federal government should expect compensation from the country of origin of illegals.
That's difficult to do when Mexico encourages its people to come here. They aren't likely to want to compensate us in that case.
-Enoch Powell
mexico has more billionaires than germany so says the vdare site
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
All the wealthy people want to pass off their peasants on the U.S.
Mexico's economy is so fucked up.
-Enoch Powell
It doesn't make a difference whether Mexico's officials
--encourage their citizens to illegally enter the US,
--look the other way when they see them illegally crossing the border, or
--have no prior knowledge of them illegally crossing the border,
the fact remains that a U.S. law enforcement agency has custody of a person who crossed the Mexican and entered the U.S. illegally. That makes it Mexico's responsibility to prove or disprove the citizenship of this person, not the U.S. Meanwhile, the final financial responsibility lies with Mexico.
Whether Mexico wants to compensate the U.S. or not is why the State Department get paid to negotiate trade agreements.
back in the '70s; i had many friends who wanted to make a quick buck running pot accross the border. it's great work if you can get it. one run could set you for life if you put the money off shore and only drew a little at a time while working a straight job. throughout the years i've heard stories and went to several funerals of those who tried. not one person i know made it in without being caught or killed. the mexicans however have no problem bringing drugs into the us.
my question is:
if the mexican government is there to catch those coming in; why don't they see those going out of the country.
just some food for thought.
ah yes; the dream world.
first; YOU fund the federal government. YOU don't want to pay the government the money it needs to do this so YOU shouldn't expect them to do the job without proper funding.
second; i have a letter from the CA governor claiming businesses cannot differentiate between a legal and illegal and should not have to incure the cost of investigating. however; an INS bus can pull up to a business and identify a bus load of illegals in an hour or two so i don't understand.
my discussion with arnie was to change the laws making them similar to arizona laws and fine the businesses for hiring illegals using the fine money to fund the deportation of the illegals.
i'm a minority too but i'm still white and don't qualify for shit. my majors are science and engineering with minors in manufacturing and agriculture. in 8th grade i was offered a 4 year scalorship to U of I. when graduating college prep; i was told the money was no longer available because affirmative action.
it's too early here for my fingers to spell so forgive the mispelling.
There is a pilot program in place now, but few companies are aware of it or use it.
You and the c-whore are way out of tune. How about the doctors who come to these countries and nobody respects their knowledge and end up at Mcedees? They don't have anything to contribute or the racists such as yourself and c-whore just don't like them cause they are coloured? It is true that you yankees can't remember the past. I am sure the ancestors who came here all spoke native and contibuted a ton to helping out. And I have read c-whores (whos name spells it all out) responce to the killings. People who can't remember yesterday make for great racists.
If C-whore gets fired should he just leave the country instead of collecting some unemployment before he can get another job. You two do indeed make some funny reading.
We already have an effective method:
- Are they alive?
- Are they appropriately skilled with a good character?
- Do they want the job at the rate offered?