Immigration

puremagic

onelongsong wrote:

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.

mammasan

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

onelongsong

puremagic wrote:

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?

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

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.

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

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?

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

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.

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

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.

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

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.

puremagic

onelongsong wrote:

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.

CorporateWhore

puremagic wrote:

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.

RavennaSeattle1911

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

mexico has more billionaires than germany so says the vdare site

CorporateWhore

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

mexico has more billionaires than germany so says the vdare site

All the wealthy people want to pass off their peasants on the U.S.

Mexico's economy is so fucked up.

puremagic

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

onelongsong

puremagic wrote:

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.

onelongsong

puremagic wrote:

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.

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

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.

1970RR

onelongsong wrote:

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.

even flow?

onelongsong wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

1970RR wrote:

There needs to be an effective method for businesses to check the eligibility of a woker to work in the US.

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?