-
I am completely fed up with all of this discussion of granting amnesty to ILLEGAL ALIENS.
It makes me sick and angry to see so many that are willing to destroy the value that has been historically placed on the status of "Citizen" in our country, in the name of political expediency. Handing out the status of United States Citizen should not be on an equal plane as giving out door prizes.
Does anybody really believe that people who break into our country are going to magically become good law-abiding productive members of society? Seriously? Think about it. The first act of illegally crossing our border is followed by acts of fraud (fake identification, etc) and theft (accessing public benefits). And we are to believe that these are "victimless" crimes?
To those who suggest that we have to grant Amnesty because there is no practical way to deport the 11 to 20 MILLION (or so) ILLEGAL ALIENS that are currently here, I say that there is no need to deport them. Just ENFORCE existing laws that prevent access to any and all PUBLIC SERVICES, fine Employers that staff their businesses with ILLEGAL ALIENS and the deportation issue will take care of itself in very short order. It is not rocket science at all.
To those people that have jumped through all of the hoops to come to America to become Citizens, the granting of Amnesty to those who violated the law to come here would be nothing less than a huge slap in the face. Is that what we are willing to tolerate? I, for one, am not so inclined.
Anybody that claims to give two hoots about our country and our rule of law who then says that they support AMNESTY is a LIAR and a FOOL and should be treated accordingly.
-
I am completely fed up with all of this discussion of granting amnesty to ILLEGAL ALIENS.
It makes me sick and angry to see so many that are willing to destroy the value that has been historically placed on the status of "Citizen" in our country, in the name of political expediency. Handing out the status of United States Citizen should not be on an equal plane as giving out door prizes.
Does anybody really believe that people who break into our country are going to magically become good law-abiding productive members of society? Seriously? Think about it. The first act of illegally crossing our border is followed by acts of fraud (fake identification, etc) and theft (accessing public benefits). And we are to believe that these are "victimless" crimes?
To those who suggest that we have to grant Amnesty because there is no practical way to deport the 11 to 20 MILLION (or so) ILLEGAL ALIENS that are currently here, I say that there is no need to deport them. Just ENFORCE existing laws that prevent access to any and all PUBLIC SERVICES, fine Employers that staff their businesses with ILLEGAL ALIENS and the deportation issue will take care of itself in very short order. It is not rocket science at all.
To those people that have jumped through all of the hoops to come to America to become Citizens, the granting of Amnesty to those who violated the law to come here would be nothing less than a huge slap in the face. Is that what we are willing to tolerate? I, for one, am not so inclined.
Anybody that claims to give two hoots about our country and our rule of law who then says that they support AMNESTY is a LIAR and a FOOL and should be treated accordingly.
:da man:
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
-
I am completely fed up with all of this discussion of granting amnesty to ILLEGAL ALIENS.
It makes me sick and angry to see so many that are willing to destroy the value that has been historically placed on the status of "Citizen" in our country, in the name of political expediency. Handing out the status of United States Citizen should not be on an equal plane as giving out door prizes.
Does anybody really believe that people who break into our country are going to magically become good law-abiding productive members of society? Seriously? Think about it. The first act of illegally crossing our border is followed by acts of fraud (fake identification, etc) and theft (accessing public benefits). And we are to believe that these are "victimless" crimes?
To those who suggest that we have to grant Amnesty because there is no practical way to deport the 11 to 20 MILLION (or so) ILLEGAL ALIENS that are currently here, I say that there is no need to deport them. Just ENFORCE existing laws that prevent access to any and all PUBLIC SERVICES, fine Employers that staff their businesses with ILLEGAL ALIENS and the deportation issue will take care of itself in very short order. It is not rocket science at all.
To those people that have jumped through all of the hoops to come to America to become Citizens, the granting of Amnesty to those who violated the law to come here would be nothing less than a huge slap in the face. Is that what we are willing to tolerate? I, for one, am not so inclined.
Anybody that claims to give two hoots about our country and our rule of law who then says that they support AMNESTY is a LIAR and a FOOL and should be treated accordingly.
:thumbsup:
I am in total agreement with you Howie. A nation cannot exist without enforced borders. It amazes me that this simple point has been overlooked for so long, and it is no surprise that we have devolved to this place. Two powerful forces have warped this whole discussion: the left which wants to continue to swarm and overwhelm our system, and the corporatists than want cheap labor. And at this point we have no politicians willing to stand up against these forces, and a large swath of the population (from the so called "right") cheering them on to cave completely on some faint hope that they will "win" an election. Given the cost of this "win," what will it provide for the health and well being of the nation?
-
Just ENFORCE existing laws
That's the bottom line with immigration - and firearms, for that matter. We already have plenty of laws, probably more than we need. Why does this congress insist on passing new ones? There is a pathway to citizenship, and immigrants have been following it for many years.
-
That's the bottom line with immigration - and firearms, for that matter. We already have plenty of laws, probably more than we need. Why does this congress insist on passing new ones? There is a pathway to citizenship, and immigrants have been following it for many years.
Absolutely right!
:beer:
-
Sorry, Howie.
Have no problem with calling for no amnesty per se, but you go off the rails generalizing that these aren't good law-abiding people once they're here.
When I see an unfashionably dressed woman holding bags of groceries with 3 little munchkins walking behind her in clothes too big....I see one those kids as my mother.
'She' knows nothing about Sicily...she can understand but not speak fluent Italian...and she was brought here by my grandmother. Her great granddaughter is Princeton-Yale.
How can 'you' demand respect for our laws when the existing ones haven't been enforced....when our own Justice Department publicly says they're not going to enforce laws?
Looks from here that people who religiously follow laws are more like subjects today than free men.
-
Sorry, Howie.
Have no problem with calling for no amnesty per se, but you go off the rails generalizing that these aren't good law-abiding people once they're here.
When I see an unfashionably dressed woman holding bags of groceries with 3 little munchkins walking behind her in clothes too big....I see one those kids as my mother.
'She' knows nothing about Sicily...she can understand but not speak fluent Italian...and she was brought here by my grandmother. Her great granddaughter is Princeton-Yale.
How can 'you' demand respect for our laws when the existing ones haven't been enforced....when our own Justice Department publicly says they're not going to enforce laws?
Looks from here that people who religiously follow laws are more like subjects today than free men.
There is a LOT more to this than that! Number one of which is what message are we sending to people all over the world who are patiently standing in line trying to get in this country the RIGHT way?
-
There is a LOT more to this than that! Number one of which is what message are we sending to people all over the world who are patiently standing in line trying to get in this country the RIGHT way?
Exactly. It doesn't matter a hoot whether or not they are "good people" or "bad people." ALL people that wish to legally immigrate into a nation must follow the laws that the nation has established. And it is the sworn duty of the nation's government to enforce the laws and keep the borders secure. This is one of the most basic and fundamental duties of said government.
-
I am probably alone in this thinking here on this site, but I think our existing laws are decidedly too anti-immigrant, and that has contributed to the problem. Now, now. Here me out.
If we go back to the 1950's and 60's when we didn't have a welfare state, and people could come and go as they pleased, there really was no problem. People came up to pick fruit or whatever, and when the work was done they went back. But then we made social welfare and unemployment available, so there was an economic incentive to just stay and do the seasonal work and collect unemployment the rest of the year. The increase in border security also became a deterrent to coming and going. It was easier to just move the family over once and be done with it.
The whole problem is caused by the economic divide between the US and Mexico. Increasing border security and keeping migrant workers out will only widen the gap between the two countries. We are both better off by allowing their workers in. We get cheap labor to produce more affordable products, and they get much needed capital to improve their economy. Free trade is always a win/win in the long run, and far better than erecting barriers, which only empowers government and special interest groups.
I propose that we loosen up our laws and let anyone in who is qualified and wants to work, but strictly enforce the law insofar as qualifying for public assistance and other benefits, which should be a prerogative of citizenship. If it were up to me, this would include voting and access to public education. The end result would be a robust exchange of labor between our two countries with the hope of creating a future common market. It would also check states and especially the federal government from becoming too socialistic, whereas increasing border security only incentivizes socialism.
In the end, we'd have a more secure border because most people would be coming through routinely, and our security apparatus could focus on those who are truly a security threat.
-
I am probably alone in this thinking here on this site, but I think our existing laws are decidedly too anti-immigrant, and that has contributed to the problem. Now, now. Here me out.
If we go back to the 1950's and 60's when we didn't have a welfare state, and people could come and go as they pleased, there really was no problem. People came up to pick fruit or whatever, and when the work was done they went back. But then we made social welfare and unemployment available, so there was an economic incentive to just stay and do the seasonal work and collect unemployment the rest of the year. The increase in border security also became a deterrent to coming and going. It was easier to just move the family over once and be done with it.
The whole problem is caused by the economic divide between the US and Mexico. Increasing border security and keeping migrant workers out will only widen the gap between the two countries. We are both better off by allowing their workers in. We get cheap labor to produce more affordable products, and they get much needed capital to improve their economy. Free trade is always a win/win in the long run, and far better than erecting barriers, which only empowers government and special interest groups.
I propose that we loosen up our laws and let anyone in who is qualified and wants to work, but strictly enforce the law insofar as qualifying for public assistance and other benefits, which should be a prerogative of citizenship. If it were up to me, this would include voting and access to public education. The end result would be a robust exchange of labor between our two countries with the hope of creating a future common market. It would also check states and especially the federal government from becoming too socialistic, whereas increasing border security only incentivizes socialism.
IF we had a government that we could trust to "faithfully execute the laws" I would be more than willing to enter into a discussion of your ideas (some of them have REAL merit) but as things currently stand I'm not interested!
-
I am probably alone in this thinking here on this site, but I think our existing laws are decidedly too anti-immigrant, and that has contributed to the problem. Now, now. Here me out.
If we go back to the 1950's and 60's when we didn't have a welfare state, and people could come and go as they pleased, there really was no problem. People came up to pick fruit or whatever, and when the work was done they went back. But then we made social welfare and unemployment available, so there was an economic incentive to just stay and do the seasonal work and collect unemployment the rest of the year. The increase in border security also became a deterrent to coming and going. It was easier to just move the family over once and be done with it.
The whole problem is caused by the economic divide between the US and Mexico. Increasing border security and keeping migrant workers out will only widen the gap between the two countries. We are both better off by allowing their workers in. We get cheap labor to produce more affordable products, and they get much needed capital to improve their economy. Free trade is always a win/win in the long run, and far better than erecting barriers, which only empowers government and special interest groups.
I propose that we loosen up our laws and let anyone in who is qualified and wants to work, but strictly enforce the law insofar as qualifying for public assistance and other benefits, which should be a prerogative of citizenship. If it were up to me, this would include voting and access to public education. The end result would be a robust exchange of labor between our two countries with the hope of creating a future common market. It would also check states and especially the federal government from becoming too socialistic, whereas increasing border security only incentivizes socialism.
Your view is essentially the Libertarian Party view (at least is was for some time, haven't checked on it recently). It is an area in which I personally part ways with the LP. This view is one of the idealistic "wouldn't it be nice!!" views that has slim to no chance of ever being realized. You address the completely suicidal aspect of having open borders and a generous welfare state. A nation cannot survive with both. And, unfortunately all of the momentum and movement that we have experienced in this nation over the past several decades is to provide MORE & MORE of an overly generous welfare state. And because of the fact that none of this is "short-sighted" mistakes or unintended consequences of generous hearts, the likelihood of it ever being rolled back as your approach demands, will simply never happen. That train has left the station long ago. In fact, we have created an entitlement system that is destined to implode at some point even if its benefits were limited to the actual citizens of the nation. Adding more hands and mouths just hastens that implosion.
-
IF we had a government that we could trust to "faithfully execute the laws" I would be more than willing to enter into a discussion of your ideas (some of them have REAL merit) but as things currently stand I'm not interested!
The problem is we have way, way too many laws. The best system is one in which there are a few sensible laws, and those laws are strictly enforced. The government is simply unable to enforce laws that artificially restrict the law of supply and demand, especially when the demand is widespread. It really should stay out of the way of free commerce. This is why our drug laws are a failure, why prohibition failed, why we can't legally restrict abortion in most states. Besides, if property rights are "inalienable" then a Mexican should have the right to come here and negotiate a price for his labor if he so desires. It should not be a requirement of citizenship.
Asking the government to pick the winners and losers in the labor market is overreach. We need to focus on smaller, more efficient government that says what it means and has the power to make it stick.
-
Your view is essentially the Libertarian Party view (at least is was for some time, haven't checked on it recently). It is an area in which I personally part ways with the LP. This view is one of the idealistic "wouldn't it be nice!!" views that has slim to no chance of ever being realized. You address the completely suicidal aspect of having open borders and a generous welfare state. A nation cannot survive with both. And, unfortunately all of the momentum and movement that we have experienced in this nation over the past several decades is to provide MORE & MORE of an overly generous welfare state. And because of the fact that none of this is "short-sighted" mistakes or unintended consequences of generous hearts, the likelihood of it ever being rolled back as your approach demands, will simply never happen. That train has left the station long ago. In fact, we have created an entitlement system that is destined to implode at some point even if its benefits were limited to the actual citizens of the nation. Adding more hands and mouths just hastens that implosion.
I completely agree with you. I agree the system is destined to implode, and I'd say that with open borders our entitlement system will implode sooner rather than later. I consider that a good thing. Socialism and closed borders go hand-in-hand.
-
The problem is we have way, way too many laws. The best system is one in which there are a few sensible laws, and those laws are strictly enforced. The government is simply unable to enforce laws that artificially restrict the law of supply and demand, especially when the demand is widespread. It really should stay out of the way of free commerce. This is why our drug laws are a failure, why prohibition failed, why we can't legally restrict abortion in most states. Besides, if property rights are "inalienable" then a Mexican should have the right to come here and negotiate a price for his labor if he so desires. It should not be a requirement of citizenship.
Asking the government to pick the winners and losers in the labor market is overreach. We need to focus on smaller, more efficient government that says what it means and has the power to make it stick.
Again I agree with a lot of what you say Victor! Especially the idea that we have WAY to many laws and their attendant regulations! But the Washington establishment does not WANT what you and I want! THAT is the problem!
-
Again I agree with a lot of what you say Victor! Especially the idea that we have WAY to many laws and their attendant regulations! But the Washington establishment does not WANT what you and I want! THAT is the problem!
No, but we can take solace in the fact that they are mostly impotent when it comes to enforcing what they want. I certainly don't want them turning the country into a fortress. Walls that keep people out can just as easily be used to keep people in if it comes to it. Freedom, no walls, and a government committed only to protecting freedom is a much better alternative.
-
Your view is essentially the Libertarian Party view (at least is was for some time, haven't checked on it recently). It is an area in which I personally part ways with the LP. This view is one of the idealistic "wouldn't it be nice!!" views that has slim to no chance of ever being realized.
The chance is even more slim if we defeat the possibility of it ever working. Some of those "wouldn't it be nice?" situations might not be as unattainable as we let ourselves think. So many of us have accepted hopelessness.
-
No, but we can take solace in the fact that they are mostly impotent when it comes to enforcing what they want. I certainly don't want them turning the country into a fortress. Walls that keep people out can just as easily be used to keep people in if it comes to it. Freedom and no walls is a much better alternative.
Isolation is not typically good for a country in the long run.
-
The chance is even more slim if we defeat the possibility of it ever working. Some of those "wouldn't it be nice?" situations might not be as unattainable as we let ourselves think. So many of us have accepted hopelessness.
The problem with it is that we will never (until after the implosion) scale back the welfare state, which is a key requirement of this approach. That is why it is an idea that is essentially still born.
-
There is a LOT more to this than that! Number one of which is what message are we sending to people all over the world who are patiently standing in line trying to get in this country the RIGHT way?
Bigun, you're willing to crush the very lives of MILLIONS of young Hispanics who are as American, USA as you and I.....just so we can "send a more appealing message to those people patiently standing in line....."
Just because their parents risked EVERYTHING to get here?
If you've never had the opportunity to really know them up close....then I'll be like the Pope and forgive you for your negative image of them. LOL~
-
The problem with it is that we will never (until after the implosion) scale back the welfare state, which is a key requirement of this approach. That is why it is an idea that is essentially still born.
I don't think Massad is really proposing a huge downsizing of the welfare state. He more just wants to tighten the requirements against illegals so they have more incentive to work hard and become citizens the right way. Fixing this process makes trade and the exchange of labor much more healthy.
-
Bigun, you're willing to crush the very lives of MILLIONS of young Hispanics who are as American, USA as you and I.....just so we can "send a more appealing message to those people patiently standing in line....."
Just because their parents risked EVERYTHING to get here?
If you've never had the opportunity to really know them up close....then I'll be like the Pope and forgive you for your negative image of them. LOL~
The world is a VERY ruff place DC And if we are to survive in it we MUST have the rule of law! It is not optional!
-
Bigun, you're willing to crush the very lives of MILLIONS of young Hispanics who are as American, USA as you and I.....just so we can "send a more appealing message to those people patiently standing in line....."
Just because their parents risked EVERYTHING to get here?
If you've never had the opportunity to really know them up close....then I'll be like the Pope and forgive you for your negative image of them. LOL~
As DC pointed out, you also have to consider what is reasonable and humane. How far are we willing to go?
-
I don't think Massad is really proposing a huge downsizing of the welfare state. He more just wants to tighten the requirements against illegals so they have more incentive to work hard and become citizens the right way. Fixing this process makes trade and the exchange of labor much more healthy.
Oh, I'd get rid of the welfare state if I could, at least at the federal level.
I think increasing border security to keep people out increases the likelihood that the welfare state expands and becomes "permanent." It won't really be permanent, but it will be locked in for a longer time. It's like building a dam. Without constant maintenance, it will eventually give way. Given the volatility of the times, and the certain increased volatility of the future, I think we are deluding ourselves if we think we can build a dam that will hold back the flood forever, especially since the pressure against it will be relentless and increasing.
-
As DC pointed out, you also have to consider what is reasonable and humane. How far are we willing to go?
As far as is necessary!
-
The world is a VERY ruff place DC And if we are to survive in it we MUST have the rule of law! It is not optional!
I have a question for you (or anybody). If you grew up in and then had kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job, would you not risk border jumping into a more healthy country to improve your life and the lives of your kids? I can tell you without hesitation that I would, and I bet a lot of you would too. I understand that we need to have some control over our borders, and that tons of illegal aliens coming here is not necessarily a good thing, but I don't like the disdain some people seem to have for these people. They're just trying to live their lives and love/support their families.
-
As far as is necessary!
Bigun! The "Hanging Judge" in the vein of Roy Bean. :tongue2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean)
-
Oh, I'd get rid of the welfare state if I could, at least at the federal level.
Right, but I figured you kind of put that on low priority because it is unlikely that you could get the welfare state shut down. We need to take smaller and more realistic steps.
-
I have a question for you (or anybody). If you grew up in and then had kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job, would you not risk border jumping into a more healthy country to improve your life and the lives of your kids? I can tell you without hesitation that I would, and I bet a lot of you would too. I understand that we need to have some control over our borders, and that tons of illegal aliens coming here is not necessarily a good thing, but I don't like the disdain some people seem to have for these people. They're just trying to live their lives and love/support their families.
I don't know about that, but I can tell you I grew up in California, and I now spend a good part of my year in Texas, and I think Mexican immigrants have added a whole bunch of value to the way of life in both of those areas. By comparison, when I return to the northeast, it's like coming back to a prison in some respects. Mexicans keep things spicy and they remind us there is more to life than just work, work, work. But then, I have a lot of Spanish blood in me, so it could just be my DNA. I know and have met many Anglos in Texas who feel very differently about it, even though they were saying what they were saying while munching tacos.
-
Bigun! The "Hanging Judge" in the vein of Roy Bean. :tongue2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean)
"Carlos Manuel Robles, you have been tried by twelve true and good men, not of your peers, but as high above you as heaven is of hell; and they said your guilty." "Time will pass and seasons will come and go; Spring with its wavin' green grass and heaps of sweet-smellin flowers on every hill and dale. Then will come sultry Summer, with her shimmerin' heat-waves on the baked horizon; and Fall with her yellow harvest-moon and the hills growin' brown and golden under a sinkin' Sun; and finally Winter, with its bitin', whinin' wind, and all the land will be mantled with snow. But you won't be here to, see any of 'em, Carlos Manuel Robles; not by a damn sight, because it's the order of this court that you be took to the nearest tree and hanged by the neck. The sheriff will ride off leaving you to dangle by the neck until you are dead, dead, dead you no good son-of-a-bitch!"
Signed: Judge Roy Bean- From "Vinegarroon", by Ruel McDaniel.
-
I don't know about that, but I can tell you I grew up in California, and I now spend a good part of my year in Texas, and I think Mexican immigrants have added a whole bunch of value to the way of life in both of those areas. By comparison, when I return to the northeast, it's like coming back to a prison in some respects. Mexicans keep things spicy and they remind us there is more to life than just work, work, work. But then, I have a lot of Spanish blood in me, so it could just be my DNA. I know and have met many Anglos in Texas who feel very differently about it, even though they were saying what they were saying while munching tacos.
I think Republicans need to find a way to separate these people from the Democrats, at least somewhat. I think one of the big concerns of people on the right is their tendency to vote blue. If all of those illegals became legal and somehow managed to turn an important red state (Texas?) blue, it would be over for the Republicans.
-
I have a question for you (or anybody). If you grew up in and then had kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job, would you not risk border jumping into a more healthy country to improve your life and the lives of your kids? I can tell you without hesitation that I would, and I bet a lot of you would too. I understand that we need to have some control over our borders, and that tons of illegal aliens coming here is not necessarily a good thing, but I don't like the disdain some people seem to have for these people. They're just trying to live their lives and love/support their families.
Having never faced that situation I don't KNOW what I would do but would like to think that I would do everything possible to make things better at home before considering running off violating the laws of other lands.
And BTW, Where do you get the idea that I have disdain for anyone? I do not!
-
Having never faced that situation I don't KNOW what I would do but would like to think that I would do everything possible to make things better at home before considering running off violating the laws of other lands.
And BTW, Where do you get the idea that I have disdain for anyone? I do not!
I didn't necessarily mean you in particular, but a lot of people do dislike illegals with great intensity.
-
Republicans of every stripe are confronted with a very challenging conundrum. Because of various reasons, they have ceded or lost whole voting blocks. The black vote will continue to vote heavily democrat for at least another generation. There is labor, women, and the growing welfare state who also trend heavily to the democrats. Government employees, the same.
Republicans are smart enough to understand demographics. If they alienate the Latino vote en masse, they will be royally screwed. Politically, they need to thread the needle - and it may be impossible.
-
I think Republicans need to find a way to separate these people from the Democrats, at least somewhat. I think one of the big concerns of people on the right is their tendency to vote blue. If all of those illegals became legal and somehow managed to turn an important red state (Texas?) blue, it would be over for the Republicans.
There is no justification for granting them citizenship or voting rights. They simply are not entitled to that, having come here against our laws, however ill-conceived those laws may have been. They ARE entitled to stay and negotiate their labor if they wish since labor is property and property rights are inalienable.
Jefferson gave us an amazing, robust way of looking at government, if we would only abide by it.
-
I think Republicans need to find a way to separate these people from the Democrats, at least somewhat. I think one of the big concerns of people on the right is their tendency to vote blue. If all of those illegals became legal and somehow managed to turn an important red state (Texas?) blue, it would be over for the Republicans.
That's the crux of it Dex. This thread, and many others, are filled with wonderful ideas brought forth from people with very good intentions. But the reality of the world that we live in has devolved far past any of this. Aside from a handful of reps in the House, and perhaps a stray Senator here and there, no one in the political establishment currently on the national stage wants any of this!! That is just our current reality. And while this issue is certainly important and will continue to have drastic impacts on the health of this nation, it is far from the only area in which we have strayed far and wide as a nation. Yes, the Democrats and their supporting organizations have very specific plans to turn many large purple states blue. They will use every front available to them to accomplish it.
And aside from the citizens of this country that essentially no longer have representation in the national government, there is no one that wants to do a thing to stop it. This march has been going on for a LONG time, and it has successfully stomped through our Institutions. We are living through the beginning of the end games. As sad as I am to say it, I think that the tide has turned long ago.
-
Republicans of every stripe are confronted with a very challenging conundrum. Because of various reasons, they have ceded or lost whole voting blocks. The black vote will continue to vote heavily democrat for at least another generation. There is labor, women, and the growing welfare state who also trend heavily to the democrats. Government employees, the same.
Republicans are smart enough to understand demographics. If they alienate the Latino vote en masse, they will be royally screwed. Politically, they need to thread the needle - and it may be impossible.
If the GOP had any sense, they would know this issue is a wedge issue with Democrats, even more so than it is with Republicans. Labor unions don't like migrant workers, but they look the other way because immigrants give them the red herring that makes unionization seem necessary to the working class. They are kind of like doctors who poison the well of the town in order to ensure a steady stream of patients.
-
What do you all think of radical racist grour Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the U.S.? La Raza, and many of the offshoots do not want to assimilate, and are hate America. How about the city in Ca., that doesn't allow 'gringos', or didn't at one time? And then, there are the parades and rallies inundated with the Mexican flags, but no American flag.
Since we have been in existence, immigrants chose to assimilate, and even after struggles, the assimilations happened. With Mexico, it's a different story. Some want the southwest back for Mexico, as though that will help the Mexican economy. Too many of these radical groups are trying to bring us down to their level in much the same way as many Muslims.
I'm all for immigration, but not for people who hate us, and demand we change to meet their needs and wants.
-
What do you all think of radical racist grour Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the U.S.? La Raza, and many of the offshoots do not want to assimilate, and are hate America. How about the city in Ca., that doesn't allow 'gringos', or didn't at one time? And then, there are the parades and rallies inundated with the Mexican flags, but no American flag.
Since we have been in existence, immigrants chose to assimilate, and even after struggles, the assimilations happened. With Mexico, it's a different story. Some want the southwest back for Mexico, as though that will help the Mexican economy. Too many of these radical groups are trying to bring us down to their level in much the same way as many Muslims.
I'm all for immigration, but not for people who hate us, and demand we change to meet their needs and wants.
I think the radicalization of the Mexican population is an outgrowth of socialism. Socialism and closed borders fit together like peanut butter and chocolate. The Soviet Union could not survive once it could no longer maintain an iron curtain. American conservatives should understand that better than anyone.
-
Sorry, Howie.
Have no problem with calling for no amnesty per se, but you go off the rails generalizing that these aren't good law-abiding people once they're here.
When I see an unfashionably dressed woman holding bags of groceries with 3 little munchkins walking behind her in clothes too big....I see one those kids as my mother.
'She' knows nothing about Sicily...she can understand but not speak fluent Italian...and she was brought here by my grandmother. Her great granddaughter is Princeton-Yale.
How can 'you' demand respect for our laws when the existing ones haven't been enforced....when our own Justice Department publicly says they're not going to enforce laws?
Looks from here that people who religiously follow laws are more like subjects today than free men.
So how do you square that, DC? The very FIRST action in sneaking into our country is a violation of law. That is followed up with subsequent violations of any number of laws in order to avoid being held to account for the first violation.
I don't know about you, but that pattern is not one that leads me to believe that the perpetrator is one that I would trust or want to be my neighbor.
-
That's the bottom line with immigration - and firearms, for that matter. We already have plenty of laws, probably more than we need. Why does this congress insist on passing new ones? There is a pathway to citizenship, and immigrants have been following it for many years.
Nailed it! :beer:
-
Quote from: Bigun on Today at 10:40:27 AM
There is a LOT more to this than that! Number one of which is what message are we sending to people all over the world who are patiently standing in line trying to get in this country the RIGHT way?
Exactly. It doesn't matter a hoot whether or not they are "good people" or "bad people." ALL people that wish to legally immigrate into a nation must follow the laws that the nation has established. And it is the sworn duty of the nation's government to enforce the laws and keep the borders secure. This is one of the most basic and fundamental duties of said government.
You are both correct!
When one demonstrates their contempt for our laws with their very first act upon entering our country, they should immediately forfeit the privilege[/i] of being here in the first place. Nobody has the right to be here, other than by birth or by following the established legal procedures for entry.
-
As far as is necessary!
:thumbsup:
-
I have a question for you (or anybody). If you grew up in and then had kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job, would you not risk border jumping into a more healthy country to improve your life and the lives of your kids? I can tell you without hesitation that I would, and I bet a lot of you would too. I understand that we need to have some control over our borders, and that tons of illegal aliens coming here is not necessarily a good thing, but I don't like the disdain some people seem to have for these people. They're just trying to live their lives and love/support their families.
I believe that we would need to take the responsibility to square away our own country before jumping a border to invade someone else's country, first.
-
Nobody has the right to be here, other than by birth or by following the established legal procedures for entry.
Would you maintain the same position for someone who had purchased a handgun to defend himself in the face of laws that prevented it? Aren't certain rights inalienable, and therefore morally out of bounds for government to restrict? Don't property rights fit into that category? Isn't a man's labor his property?
-
I didn't necessarily mean you in particular, but a lot of people do dislike illegals with great intensity.
I only dislike people that believe that they are above the law and that they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor and sacrifice, just because they want it.
-
Republicans of every stripe are confronted with a very challenging conundrum. Because of various reasons, they have ceded or lost whole voting blocks. The black vote will continue to vote heavily democrat for at least another generation. There is labor, women, and the growing welfare state who also trend heavily to the democrats. Government employees, the same.
Republicans are smart enough to understand demographics. If they alienate the Latino vote en masse, they will be royally screwed. Politically, they need to thread the needle - and it may be impossible.
The GOP Establishment had better concentrate on not alienating the legitimate American Voter.
-
The GOP Establishment had better concentrate on not alienating the legitimate American Voter.
Hence, the (political) problem.
-
What do you all think of radical racist grour Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the U.S.? La Raza, and many of the offshoots do not want to assimilate, and are hate America. How about the city in Ca., that doesn't allow 'gringos', or didn't at one time? And then, there are the parades and rallies inundated with the Mexican flags, but no American flag.
Since we have been in existence, immigrants chose to assimilate, and even after struggles, the assimilations happened. With Mexico, it's a different story. Some want the southwest back for Mexico, as though that will help the Mexican economy. Too many of these radical groups are trying to bring us down to their level in much the same way as many Muslims.
I'm all for immigration, but not for people who hate us, and demand we change to meet their needs and wants.
Well stated! :hands:
-
I think the radicalization of the Mexican population is an outgrowth of socialism. Socialism and closed borders fit together like peanut butter and chocolate. The Soviet Union could not survive once it could no longer maintain an iron curtain. American conservatives should understand that better than anyone.
The Soviets built their walls to keep their people from leaving.
The Mexican government is dumping their unwanted (illiterate and criminal) population on us. I don't know about you, but I find this to be unacceptable.
-
Would you maintain the same position for someone who had purchased a handgun to defend himself in the face of laws that prevented it? Aren't certain rights inalienable, and therefore morally out of bounds for government to restrict? Don't property rights fit into that category? Isn't a man's labor his property?
Keep in mind that with Rights comes Responsibility.
No Amnesty.
Period.
-
Hence, the (political) problem.
It's only a "problem" for those who lack principle.
-
The Soviets built their walls to keep their people from leaving.
The Mexican government is dumping their unwanted (illiterate and criminal) population on us. I don't know about you, but I find this to be unacceptable.
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden and the UK also dumped their undesirables on you. That actually worked out pretty well in the long run.
-
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden and the UK also dumped their undesirables on you. That actually worked out pretty well in the long run.
Not quite the same thing, my friend.
Trust me on this.
-
Not quite the same thing, my friend.
Trust me on this.
I know - pulling your leg very slightly with that.
I have two litmus tests: Are they willing to assimilate into the general culture and are they willing to work.
For first generation, I'm not going to fuss over being able to sling the lingo - worked with way too many people who have English as their 3rd or 4th language to be fussed by that. Their kids though ....
The classical immigrant routine to the US goes - the smarter ones (risk takers) emigrate. They try to fit in, but don't quite. Their kids pretty much disown their original culture to attempt to fit in. It's only when you get to the grandkids that you have someone who is proud to be American, yet also proud of their roots.
-
"When one demonstrates their contempt for our laws with their very first act upon entering our country, they should immediately forfeit the privilege[/i] of being here in the first place."
Reminds me a little of musical chairs we played as kids. We're the last one to sit here, and while I'm quite happy with that outcome, we can sometimes be a little disingenuous about exactly how we achieved that last remaining chair. We violated a hell of a lot of borders in creating the one we now own as a nation.
But I suspect I'm with most here when it comes to facing down the open borders crowd. I want borders that are substantially improved from what we have today. I want state governors to be able to assert without hesitation that they are comfortable with the degree of security. We still get drug smugglers, gang bangers, human traffickers and other assorted criminal types coming across routinely. The CBP needs to be enhanced; ICE needs to be refocused. States need to be brought into the process as partners not bystanders.
For those who might see this really as an issue of the defining of an ethnic group in total I have no comments. With what's going on in places like Detroit, Chicago and D.C, immigration reform isn't about bringing down my heritage or culture. It's a matter of reality and finding some common ground with my political opponents, the left.
Pragmatism is a conservative quality.
-
I know - pulling your leg very slightly with that.
I have two litmus tests: Are they willing to assimilate into the general culture and are they willing to work.
For first generation, I'm not going to fuss over being able to sling the lingo - worked with way too many people who have English as their 3rd or 4th language to be fussed by that. Their kids though ....
The classical immigrant routine to the US goes - the smarter ones (risk takers) emigrate. They try to fit in, but don't quite. Their kids pretty much disown their original culture to attempt to fit in. It's only when you get to the grandkids that you have someone who is proud to be American, yet also proud of their roots.
My father's grandparents came here from Lebanon, and my mother's grandparents came here from Mexico. In both cases, they refused to teach their children the language of the old country -- with the exception of some special words and phrases here and there -- because they wanted their children to be Americans, and they wanted their grandchildren to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
Somewhere along the line immigrants got the idea that hanging onto their "cultural identities" was preferable to adapting. I maintain there is a direct relationship between this trend and the emergence of the managerial state.
-
My father's grandparents came here from Lebanon, and my mother's grandparents came here from Mexico. In both cases, they refused to teach their children the language of the old country -- with the exception of some special words and phrases here and there -- because they wanted their children to be Americans, and they wanted their grandchildren to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
Somewhere along the line immigrants got the idea that hanging onto their "cultural identities" was preferable to adapting. I maintain there is a direct relationship between this trend and the emergence of the managerial state.
In my youth I had a school friend by the name of Amador Sigero. I was at his house one day after school for some reason I cannot recall but I DO recall that Amador later told me - apologized actually for speaking Spanish in my presence. I told him that I had thought nothing of it but he explained that his mother had ROYALLY chewed him out and insisted on his apologizing to me. I didn't understand any of it at the time but now I realize that his mom, who spoke not a word of English, so wanted he son to be an American that she was willing to do anything to make sure he assimilated! We've lost that over the last 50 years.
-
My father's grandparents came here from Lebanon, and my mother's grandparents came here from Mexico. In both cases, they refused to teach their children the language of the old country -- with the exception of some special words and phrases here and there -- because they wanted their children to be Americans, and they wanted their grandchildren to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
Somewhere along the line immigrants got the idea that hanging onto their "cultural identities" was preferable to adapting. I maintain there is a direct relationship between this trend and the emergence of the managerial state.
I know what you mean about the words and phrases! My parents - totally white bread English - use several Malay phrases as shorthand. Our kids - well, they are so used to a mix of English, Italian and Hebrew that any conversation between us is going to be totally incomprehensible to an outsider.
-
In my youth I had a school friend by the name of Amador Sigero. I was at his house one day after school for some reason I cannot recall but I DO recall that Amador later told me - apologized actually for speaking Spanish in my presence. I told him that I had thought nothing of it but he explained that his mother had ROYALLY chewed him out and insisted on his apologizing to me. I didn't understand any of it at the time but now I realize that his mom, who spoke not a word of English, so wanted he son to be an American that she was willing to do anything to make sure he assimilated! We've lost that over the last 50 years.
It might have something to do with the fact that being an American doesn't mean much anymore. These days the schools are teaching kids to be "global citizens." By the time they are adults they'll accept global taxation and the surrender of American sovereignty to the third world. That's the dream, anyway. Seems more like a nightmare to me.
-
It's only a "problem" for those who lack principle.
You must really be upset over the rest of our judicial system then which by most estimates result in 90 to 95 percent plea agreements. After all if an illegal immigrant's misdemeanor can't permit any type of "plea agreement", then certainly no felony should ever be allowed to be pleaded down.
-
I know - pulling your leg very slightly with that.
I have two litmus tests: Are they willing to assimilate into the general culture and are they willing to work.
For first generation, I'm not going to fuss over being able to sling the lingo - worked with way too many people who have English as their 3rd or 4th language to be fussed by that. Their kids though ....
The classical immigrant routine to the US goes - the smarter ones (risk takers) emigrate. They try to fit in, but don't quite. Their kids pretty much disown their original culture to attempt to fit in. It's only when you get to the grandkids that you have someone who is proud to be American, yet also proud of their roots.
Gotcha, brother.
The main problem is the lack of assimilation which on top of the propensity for illegal activities and the overpowering sense of entitlement makes the whole deal unacceptable.
I will gladly welcome all comers who arrive with the notion of becoming Americans and fully assimilating.
To those who want to maintain their allegiance and loyalty to another country, they can stay there. We really do not need or want them here.
-
"When one demonstrates their contempt for our laws with their very first act upon entering our country, they should immediately forfeit the privilege[/i] of being here in the first place."
Reminds me a little of musical chairs we played as kids. We're the last one to sit here, and while I'm quite happy with that outcome, we can sometimes be a little disingenuous about exactly how we achieved that last remaining chair. We violated a hell of a lot of borders in creating the one we now own as a nation.
But I suspect I'm with most here when it comes to facing down the open borders crowd. I want borders that are substantially improved from what we have today. I want state governors to be able to assert without hesitation that they are comfortable with the degree of security. We still get drug smugglers, gang bangers, human traffickers and other assorted criminal types coming across routinely. The CBP needs to be enhanced; ICE needs to be refocused. States need to be brought into the process as partners not bystanders.
For those who might see this really as an issue of the defining of an ethnic group in total I have no comments. With what's going on in places like Detroit, Chicago and D.C, immigration reform isn't about bringing down my heritage or culture. It's a matter of reality and finding some common ground with my political opponents, the left.
Pragmatism is a conservative quality.
Not sure about you and the mouse in your pocket (we), but I know and can verify that my ancestors arrived to these shores through Ellis Island and did what they were supposed to do in the process.
As a matter of fact, my maternal grandfather felt compelled to enlist in the Navy as his response to the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. At the time he was 37 years old, married with 5 children and grandma was pregnant with number 6. He had been too young for WWl and wasn't going to be denied the chance to defend America.
My late father in law also came here from the Netherlands, legally, after WWll.
If it's asking someone too much to play by the rules, then we really do not need them here to begin with, do we?
-
Gotcha, brother.
The main problem is the lack of assimilation which on top of the propensity for illegal activities and the overpowering sense of entitlement makes the whole deal unacceptable.
I will gladly welcome all comers who arrive with the notion of becoming Americans and fully assimilating.
To those who want to maintain their allegiance and loyalty to another country, they can stay there. We really do not need or want them here.
:beer:
Intent is the key to me.
I have a very dear friend. His parents were illegals. He served with distinction in the US military (He were a Marine, but you can't have everything!). He's more American than NYC. His parents insisted on him only speaking English - though he has that really flat and annoying San Diego accent (not sure what it is about that accent!).
-
Not sure about you and the mouse in your pocket (we), but I know and can verify that my ancestors arrived to these shores through Ellis Island and did what they were supposed to do in the process.
The "We" I'm referring to are the Founding Fathers and their offspring, as well as the British before them. How do you think this great Nation was developed? Sounds like some of us only accept the heritage we pick and choose. My ancestors came over on the famine ships for the most part, but the whole heritage of my Country is mine, bad and good.
My point is that we seem to ignore exactly how "we" came to be here, when we completely go off on others who are trying it the same way. The laws you feel should not in any way be changed or compromised came about through conquest. I'm not apologizing for how we came to be the "lawful" (as we defined it) owners. Still I wonder why we can't begin to work with others who have violated borders, but can otherwise be productive citizens. Yet we don't question tens of thousands of such arrangements across the Country annually for crimes far worse than many of these illegal immigrants.
I know, it's the principle. :pondering:
-
Excellent post, Howie.
I'm re-posting something I put up yesterday in another thread, with modification.
Amnesty -- in any form -- will be the death knell of the Euro-American culture.
If we do this, if we pass legislation -- ANY kind of legislation -- that "normalizes" the illegals already here (even if they don't get "citizenship") -- all it will do will be to encourage MILLIONS MORE to come.
There's a saying:
Anytime you subsidize something, you get MORE of it.
If we "excuse the presence" of those who have sneaked into the country in the last twenty years, what does that say to EVERY person who might be willing to give it a try in the future?
If we "normalize" illegal immigration, by removing all penalties and obstacles for entering the country illegally (even "after the fact"), it becomes open invitation to everyone of THE WORLD (shouting intentional): just get across our border, and you're in! Nothing to worry about!
Or, as Jim Morrison of The Doors said long ago in "The End": "The West is the best -- get here, and we'll do the rest..."
Let me state that I'm a realist, probably one of the few on this forum.
I realize it's a pipedream to think of "sending all the illegals home". That's not going to be done.
BUT -- anything we do to "normalize", "legalize", or excuse them will do nothing but bring MORE of them. What does that portend for the future of America, for our culture?
My solution is simple:
Do nothing.
That's right, NOTHING.
They are here. Let them continue to work, and have Social Security, etc. taken out of their pay. If they work long enough to qualify, let them even -collect- SS benefits, etc. Seems realistic to me, insofar as that goes.
But there must remain a PRICE for entering America illegally.
One that cannot simply be "payed away" in taxes or fines.
The illegals who have come here must PAY that price.
The price must be this:
They must NEVER become U.S. citizens.
They can never vote.
They must ALWAYS be condemned (carefully chosen word) to something of a "second class existence", something intentionally "below" what a citizen like you or I enjoy.
That must be the price of illegal entry.
The anchor babies?
That's not going to be changed, short of a "convention of the states".
It is what it is by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We'll have to live with that -- although I wish it -could- be changed.
So -- the children will be citizens.
But the parents who broke the law must NEVER be citizens, or even "legal".
I will not hold the children responsible for the sins of the fathers, but the fathers must NOT be forgiven of their sins against our country.
If we aren't prepared to stand firm about this, we are going to lose the country.
Suggestion:
Back in the 1970s a Frenchman by the name of Jean Raspail wrote a prescient and controversial book entitled "The Camp of the Saints".
You don't have to read it, but please take a few minutes to read the wiki about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints
If we "reform" immigration so that anyone can come here without penalty and without fear, this is where we're headed.
Unrestricted immigration -- and this is exactly what any kind of "immigration reform" is going to result in -- will swamp this country as were the dikes of New Orleans destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
It took a few centuries for the Roman Empire to collapse.
It seems to have taken only about fifty years for the United States to be approaching that brink.
I sense that five hundred years from now, some historian (if there are any left by then, probably in Asia) will look back and comment that although the facts of the American self-destruction are not in dispute, what remains a mystery is why the Euro-Americans willingly did this to themselves...
Why.... ?
-
Dex wrote above:
[[ I have a question for you (or anybody). If you grew up in and then had kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job, would you not risk border jumping into a more healthy country to improve your life and the lives of your kids? ]]
So, Dex, here's a direct question:
Just HOW MANY of these folks are you willing to let come here?
Ten million, will that be enough?
Twenty million?
Thirty million?
Fifty million?
Eighty million?
How many should be let in, before you say "that's enough, we have too many now" ??
There are more than FIVE BILLION people in the world who are not Americans.
How many millions upon millions upon millions upon millions (had enough yet?) are you going to let in, just because they might have "kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job" ??
Again, how many?
I've asked the questions, directly "at you".
Waitin' for an answer....
-
Amnesty -- in any form -- will be the death knell of the Euro-American culture.
And that ladies and germs is what it's really all about. **nononono*
-
Excellent post, Howie.
I'm re-posting something I put up yesterday in another thread, with modification.
Amnesty -- in any form -- will be the death knell of the Euro-American culture.
If we do this, if we pass legislation -- ANY kind of legislation -- that "normalizes" the illegals already here (even if they don't get "citizenship") -- all it will do will be to encourage MILLIONS MORE to come.
There's a saying:
Anytime you subsidize something, you get MORE of it.
If we "excuse the presence" of those who have sneaked into the country in the last twenty years, what does that say to EVERY person who might be willing to give it a try in the future?
If we "normalize" illegal immigration, by removing all penalties and obstacles for entering the country illegally (even "after the fact"), it becomes open invitation to everyone of THE WORLD (shouting intentional): just get across our border, and you're in! Nothing to worry about!
Or, as Jim Morrison of The Doors said long ago in "The End": "The West is the best -- get here, and we'll do the rest..."
Let me state that I'm a realist, probably one of the few on this forum.
I realize it's a pipedream to think of "sending all the illegals home". That's not going to be done.
BUT -- anything we do to "normalize", "legalize", or excuse them will do nothing but bring MORE of them. What does that portend for the future of America, for our culture?
My solution is simple:
Do nothing.
That's right, NOTHING.
They are here. Let them continue to work, and have Social Security, etc. taken out of their pay. If they work long enough to qualify, let them even -collect- SS benefits, etc. Seems realistic to me, insofar as that goes.
But there must remain a PRICE for entering America illegally.
One that cannot simply be "payed away" in taxes or fines.
The illegals who have come here must PAY that price.
The price must be this:
They must NEVER become U.S. citizens.
They can never vote.
They must ALWAYS be condemned (carefully chosen word) to something of a "second class existence", something intentionally "below" what a citizen like you or I enjoy.
That must be the price of illegal entry.
The anchor babies?
That's not going to be changed, short of a "convention of the states".
It is what it is by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We'll have to live with that -- although I wish it -could- be changed.
So -- the children will be citizens.
But the parents who broke the law must NEVER be citizens, or even "legal".
I will not hold the children responsible for the sins of the fathers, but the fathers must NOT be forgiven of their sins against our country.
If we aren't prepared to stand firm about this, we are going to lose the country.
Suggestion:
Back in the 1970s a Frenchman by the name of Jean Raspail wrote a prescient and controversial book entitled "The Camp of the Saints".
You don't have to read it, but please take a few minutes to read the wiki about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints
If we "reform" immigration so that anyone can come here without penalty and without fear, this is where we're headed.
Unrestricted immigration -- and this is exactly what any kind of "immigration reform" is going to result in -- will swamp this country as were the dikes of New Orleans destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
It took a few centuries for the Roman Empire to collapse.
It seems to have taken only about fifty years for the United States to be approaching that brink.
I sense that five hundred years from now, some historian (if there are any left by then, probably in Asia) will look back and comment that although the facts of the American self-destruction are not in dispute, what remains a mystery is why the Euro-Americans willingly did this to themselves...
Why.... ?
All that I can say is that is an excellent post, Fishrrman. Thank You.
-
Dex wrote above:
[[ I have a question for you (or anybody). If you grew up in and then had kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job, would you not risk border jumping into a more healthy country to improve your life and the lives of your kids? ]]
So, Dex, here's a direct question:
Just HOW MANY of these folks are you willing to let come here?
Ten million, will that be enough?
Twenty million?
Thirty million?
Fifty million?
Eighty million?
How many should be let in, before you say "that's enough, we have too many now" ??
There are more than FIVE BILLION people in the world who are not Americans.
How many millions upon millions upon millions upon millions (had enough yet?) are you going to let in, just because they might have "kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job" ??
Again, how many?
I've asked the questions, directly "at you".
Waitin' for an answer....
All I was saying is that I don't feel it is okay to hate these people simply for seeking a better life.
-
All I was saying is that I don't feel it is okay to hate these people simply for seeking a better life.
Why is it necessary to insinuate that insisting that the laws be followed equals hating someone? It does not!
-
Why is it necessary to insinuate that insisting that the laws be followed equals hating someone? It does not!
Not everybody does, but a lot do. They act like these people are the freeloading scum of the Earth. I have no problems with immigration laws being upheld, but don't shame somebody for trying to better their life and the lives of their family.
-
Why is it necessary to insinuate that insisting that the laws be followed equals hating someone? It does not!
Why is it necessary to insinuate that disagreeing with any comment Sarah Palin makes means that one is a Palin "hater"?
-
Not everybody does, but a lot do. They act like these people are the freeloading scum of the Earth. I have no problems with immigration laws being upheld, but don't shame somebody for trying to better their life and the lives of their family.
I'll be totally blunt. I have looked into moving to the USA.
Doing it illegal would cost me about $5000 for an airtight, established ID.
Doing it legally would cost me 2 to three times that and several years.
Guess which one is more tempting to take up?
-
My father's grandparents came here from Lebanon, and my mother's grandparents came here from Mexico. In both cases, they refused to teach their children the language of the old country -- with the exception of some special words and phrases here and there -- because they wanted their children to be Americans, and they wanted their grandchildren to be Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
Somewhere along the line immigrants got the idea that hanging onto their "cultural identities" was preferable to adapting. I maintain there is a direct relationship between this trend and the emergence of the managerial state.
I've done the exact same thing that your grandparents did with my children, for the very same reason, but your last name isn't "Gonzalez", so you are not burdened with the hyphenated citizenship that I am forced to bear, and that my children are forced to bear.
Here's something to give you perspective from the other side of the fence.
If a man and his wife migrate from Sweden to the US, their US-born children will be called Americans.
If a man migrates from France to the US, meets a beautiful woman from Ukraine and marries her, their children will be called Americans.
If a man and his wife migrate to the US from Cuba, their US-born child will be called "Hispanic" or "Cuban-American", not by choice. If their child marries the US-born daughter of a Cuban immigrant, their children will be called "Hispanic" and "Cuban-American" not by choice.
That's my parents, my brother and my nieces I'm talking about.
My suggestion is that long before there is a demand made for immigrants to better assimilate, the labels imposed on them that keep them separated from society eyond that assimilation need to be removed.
I've assimilated... why is it then that I am forced to remain anything but "American"?
-
Dex wrote above:
[[ I have a question for you (or anybody). If you grew up in and then had kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job, would you not risk border jumping into a more healthy country to improve your life and the lives of your kids? ]]
So, Dex, here's a direct question:
Just HOW MANY of these folks are you willing to let come here?
Ten million, will that be enough?
Twenty million?
Thirty million?
Fifty million?
Eighty million?
How many should be let in, before you say "that's enough, we have too many now" ??
There are more than FIVE BILLION people in the world who are not Americans.
How many millions upon millions upon millions upon millions (had enough yet?) are you going to let in, just because they might have "kids in a pretty rough country with little/no benefits and almost no hope of landing a truly good job" ??
Again, how many?
I've asked the questions, directly "at you".
Waitin' for an answer....
I'll answer for Dex...
If we allow the entire working-age population into the US today, we will still not be able to get back to the worker to retiree ratio that existed at the time that the Social Security program was put in place, and our country will collapse under the weight of discharging our debt to our retirees.
So how many will we need?
Millions more than the ones already here unless we start to have more kids.
The true collapse of our culture will not come about as a result of more people coming into our nation, but rather from the lack of people needed to sustain it.
-
Why is it necessary to insinuate that insisting that the laws be followed equals hating someone? It does not!
By itself it doesn't, but coupled with a statement made several times during this discussion: "Amnesty -- in any form -- will be the death knell of the Euro-American culture", if not hate, it certainly evidences fear. And that more than anything is why some just can't embrace any change to the laws that would result in the legalization of one illegal.
Just as with S.1348 in 2007, efforts this summer to reignite comprehensive reforms will fail, not through differences among the specifics, but through emotional barrages launched by John Tanton and his anti-immigration organizations. Tanton has written extensively about this loss of "European-American culture".
Just like the Democrats who were successful in putting Republicans on the defensive over race, gender, and other such issues, Tanton fully understands that the best defense against immigration reform is an aggressive offense based on the proposition that an appeal to fear trumps an appeal to logic.
-
By itself it doesn't, but coupled with a statement made several times during this discussion: "Amnesty -- in any form -- will be the death knell of the Euro-American culture", if not hate, it certainly evidences fear. And that more than anything is why some just can't embrace any change to the laws that would result in the legalization of one illegal.
Just as with S.1348 in 2007, efforts this summer to reignite comprehensive reforms will fail, not through differences among the specifics, but through emotional barrages launched by John Tanton and his anti-immigration organizations. Tanton has written extensively about this loss of "European-American culture".
Just like the Democrats who were successful in putting Republicans on the defensive over race, gender, and other such issues, Tanton fully understands that the best defense against immigration reform is an aggressive offense based on the proposition that an appeal to fear trumps an appeal to logic.
John Tanton...
Do you know his FR handle?
-
John Tanton...
Do you know his FR handle?
LOL, no but his organizations and "studies" are frequently followed over there.
-
"I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that." – John Tanton, Dec. 10, 1993, letter to the late Garrett Hardin
In 2012, deaths among non-Hispanic whites outnumbered births in the same group. That decrease was offset by 188,000 white immigrants arriving the same year.
I've been pounding on the low fertility rate for a while now. No culture or nation can sustain its culture with the numbers we are seeing in the US.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130905181827-united-states-birthrate-620xa.png)
-
While I agree the idea of "protecting the culture" is somewhat knee jerk and quixotic, I must also acknowledge that conservatives' feelings that their way of life is under attack is not unfounded, and so I hesitate to mock them, preferring instead to mock leftists, who I consider a far bigger threat, and the primary source of conservative discontent.
-
While I agree the idea of "protecting the culture" is somewhat knee jerk and quixotic, I must also acknowledge that conservatives' feelings that their way of life is under attack is not unfounded, and so I hesitate to mock them, preferring instead to mock leftists, who I consider a far bigger threat, and the primary source of conservative discontent.
The problem with conservatives when it comes to social issues, and that the thing that is attacking their way of life is time and the natural changes that time brings about.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian simply because I recognize the difference between a fight I can win, and one that I can't.
In a larger sense, SoCons fight for the ability to live the life they want to live in the world that they want to live it in, which is a much tougher fight than just fighting to live the life you want to live, in the world that exists around you.
I see the notion of individual freedoms akin to the latter part of the sentence over the former.
-
While I agree the idea of "protecting the culture" is somewhat knee jerk and quixotic, I must also acknowledge that conservatives' feelings that their way of life is under attack is not unfounded, and so I hesitate to mock them, preferring instead to mock leftists, who I consider a far bigger threat, and the primary source of conservative discontent.
I don't disagree especially as it applies to the left, and I certainly don't intend to mock anyone on this issue. But I won't ignore how the opposition is framing its arguments. Our culture is changing in many ways, mostly having little to do with how we invariably handle the immigration issue. Leftist economics, changes in drug attitudes, video games, music, terrorism, gay issues and more are all changing our culture dramatically. And for the most part America is accepting these changes. Those to me have more far reaching impacts than letting Juan stay here legally and work.
-
The problem with conservatives when it comes to social issues, and that the thing that is attacking their way of life is time and the natural changes that time brings about.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian simply because I recognize the difference between a fight I can win, and one that I can't.
In a larger sense, SoCons fight for the ability to live the life they want to live in the world that they want to live it in, which is a much tougher fight than just fighting to live the life you want to live, in the world that exists around you.
I see the notion of individual freedoms akin to the latter part of the sentence over the former.
It may shock you to learn that I happen to agree with most everything you said there Luis. The only point of disagreement between you and I as I see it is that you seem to take a much more caviler attitude toward the law than I do.
-
I don't disagree especially as it applies to the left, and I certainly don't intend to mock anyone on this issue. But I won't ignore how the opposition is framing its arguments. Our culture is changing in many ways, mostly having little to do with how we invariably handle the immigration issue. Leftist economics, changes in drug attitudes, video games, music, terrorism, gay issues and more are all changing our culture dramatically. And for the most part America is accepting these changes. Those to me have more far reaching impacts than letting Juan stay here legally and work.
Every culture that has ever existed has been ever changing and ours is no different but we CAN manage the change if we set our minds to it! THAT is exactly why regard for the law is SO very important!
-
Every culture that has ever existed has been ever changing and ours is no different but we CAN manage the change if we set our minds to it! THAT is exactly why regard for the law is SO very important!
You're absolutely right Bigun. But what are we trying to do with the Obamacare law? We're trying to change it because while it may have some worthwhile parts, it is failing. We do that with laws all the time at all levels of government. Look at what happened to SEIU membership when Michigan changed its laws to make it a right-to-work state.
We should be enforcing our immigration laws, but on many levels they are ineffective or otherwise out of tune with America. So what makes these laws immune from modification?
-
You're absolutely right Bigun. But what are we trying to do with the Obamacare law? We're trying to change it because while it may have some worthwhile parts, it is failing. We do that with laws all the time at all levels of government. Look at what happened to SEIU membership when Michigan changed its laws to make it a right-to-work state.
We should be enforcing our immigration laws, but on many levels they are ineffective or otherwise out of tune with America. So what makes these laws immune from modification?
I don't believe I have ever said that those laws are immutable! What I HAVE said repeatedly is that there is no point in modifying them until we have a government intent on ENFORCING the laws as they currently exist!
-
I don't believe I have ever said that those laws are immutable! What I HAVE said repeatedly is that there is no point in modifying them until we have a government intent on ENFORCING the laws as they currently exist!
This discussion reminds me of something Heinlein said - laws should require 2/3 support to be passed and 1/3 support to be repealed.
-
I don't believe I have ever said that those laws are immutable! What I HAVE said repeatedly is that there is no point in modifying them until we have a government intent on ENFORCING the laws as they currently exist!
And what I've said repeatedly is that some laws simply demand changes to make them better. One of the things I liked about he 2007 failed legislation is that several items had to be certified as in place and working before any legalization could take place. Today it's simply a hodgepodge of laws and organizations working against each other, giving too much leeway to the convening authorities.
Are the drug laws working? Hardly or we would be arresting every pot smoker. Did the alcohol ban work? No, that's why we changed it. When laws are failing to work and Americans want them changed, then it argues for another look at them.
Regardless of my personal feelings, gay marriage is here to stay, in part because of perceived constitutional issues and in large part to a change in how Americans view it.
-
It may shock you to learn that I happen to agree with most everything you said there Luis. The only point of disagreement between you and I as I see it is that you seem to take a much more caviler attitude toward the law than I do.
That's odd.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was siding with the law and you were siding against me.
Bundy is breaking and ignoring all laws, from the U.S. Constitution, to the Constitution of the State of Nevada, to the Courts, and all standing, constitutionally enacted laws drafted by constitutionally elected representatives and signed into effect by constitutionally elected Presidents going back as far as FDR.
What drives me crazy is that the concept of abiding by existing laws seems to be a movable feast to many in here.
Mine isn't the cavalier attitude about the law in here.
-
This discussion reminds me of something Heinlein said - laws should require 2/3 support to be passed and 1/3 support to be repealed.
That IS good.
I also like the idea of strict Congressional term limits.
Two terms... first one served in Congress, second one served in Leavenworth.
-
That's odd.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was siding with the law and you were siding against me.
Bundy is breaking and ignoring all laws, from the U.S. Constitution, to the Constitution of the State of Nevada, to the Courts, and all standing, constitutionally enacted laws drafted by constitutionally elected representatives and signed into effect by constitutionally elected Presidents going back as far as FDR.
What drives me crazy is that the concept of abiding by existing laws seems to be a movable feast to many in here.
Mine isn't the cavalier attitude about the law in here.
I DISAGREE with your interpretation of what the law is in that case Luis! That is NOT the same thing as disregard of the law!
See you in court counselor!
-
I DISAGREE with your interpretation of what the law is in that case Luis! That is NOT the same thing as disregard of the law!
See you in court counselor!
It's not MY interpretation of the law, it is THE law, as interpreted by Court cases prior to the Bundy case, as well as the Bundy case itself.
It is THE law as written into the Constitution of the State of Nevada and the Constitution of the United States.
THE Law as constitutionally enacted by Congress.
In Court, Bundy has lost every case presented, because he was and is in violation of the LAW.
It's not that we disagree, it is that you are stubborn and incapable of seeing anything other than the memes you read on anti-government sites.
The government does lots of things wrong. This wasn't one of them.
-
That's the crux of it Dex. This thread, and many others, are filled with wonderful ideas brought forth from people with very good intentions. But the reality of the world that we live in has devolved far past any of this. Aside from a handful of reps in the House, and perhaps a stray Senator here and there, no one in the political establishment currently on the national stage wants any of this!! That is just our current reality. And while this issue is certainly important and will continue to have drastic impacts on the health of this nation, it is far from the only area in which we have strayed far and wide as a nation. Yes, the Democrats and their supporting organizations have very specific plans to turn many large purple states blue. They will use every front available to them to accomplish it.
And aside from the citizens of this country that essentially no longer have representation in the national government, there is no one that wants to do a thing to stop it. This march has been going on for a LONG time, and it has successfully stomped through our Institutions. We are living through the beginning of the end games. As sad as I am to say it, I think that the tide has turned long ago.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
-
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Yes, it certainly is.
-
I am completely fed up with all of this discussion of granting amnesty to ILLEGAL ALIENS.
It makes me sick and angry to see so many that are willing to destroy the value that has been historically placed on the status of "Citizen" in our country, in the name of political expediency. Handing out the status of United States Citizen should not be on an equal plane as giving out door prizes.
Does anybody really believe that people who break into our country are going to magically become good law-abiding productive members of society? Seriously? Think about it. The first act of illegally crossing our border is followed by acts of fraud (fake identification, etc) and theft (accessing public benefits). And we are to believe that these are "victimless" crimes?
To those who suggest that we have to grant Amnesty because there is no practical way to deport the 11 to 20 MILLION (or so) ILLEGAL ALIENS that are currently here, I say that there is no need to deport them. Just ENFORCE existing laws that prevent access to any and all PUBLIC SERVICES, fine Employers that staff their businesses with ILLEGAL ALIENS and the deportation issue will take care of itself in very short order. It is not rocket science at all.
To those people that have jumped through all of the hoops to come to America to become Citizens, the granting of Amnesty to those who violated the law to come here would be nothing less than a huge slap in the face. Is that what we are willing to tolerate? I, for one, am not so inclined.
Anybody that claims to give two hoots about our country and our rule of law who then says that they support AMNESTY is a LIAR and a FOOL and should be treated accordingly.
AGREE 100%!
-
AGREE 100%!
Just ENFORCE existing laws that prevent access to any and all PUBLIC SERVICES.
Great rant.
The problem is that existing laws grants them access to public services.
-
Outright violation of the 14th amendment.
-
Outright violation of the 14th amendment.
I'm curious... how so?
-
Does anybody really believe that people who break into our country are going to magically become good law-abiding productive members of society?
I dunno, ask the Indians, lol.
-
I dunno, ask the Indians, lol.
Oh no you didn't!
Tell me that you didn't go there.
-
LOL! I absolutely love you guys! :beer:
-
Oh no you didn't!
Tell me that you didn't go there.
Heh, heh. Sometimes I'm just damned ornery. :jail: Okay, so where were we...oh yeah...border breakers couldn't possibly be good citizens.
-
LOL! I absolutely love you guys! :beer:
It has been fun lately. Good discussions... some disagreements here and there but no real acrimony. I swear Luis has attended a higher academic institution in France learning the art of debate. MAC is back! Andy is his awesome self... That leaves you and me DCP to have a few beers and admire it all.
-
It has been fun lately. Good discussions... some disagreements here and there but no real acrimony. I swear Luis has attended a higher academic institution in France learning the art of debate. MAC is back! Andy is his awesome self... That leaves you and me DCP to have a few beers and admire it all.
Oh sure...like you two don't add immensely to the debates? :wry:
-
Oh sure...like you two don't add immensely to the debates? :wry:
Can we still have that beer?
-
Can we still have that beer?
Only if Luis and I are invited.
-
Oh sure...like you two don't add immensely to the debates? :wry:
LOL! Just happy be associated with such good men! :beer:
-
At the risk of derailing this thread completely, how about me bringing a few of these along?
(http://cdn.cigarinspector.com/images/cigar/arturo-fuente-shark-b.jpg)
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ I dunno, ask the Indians, lol. ]]
At least the Indians understood what was happening to their way of life with their innundation by the white man, and many fought valiantly in an effort to preserve it.
I'm happy the White Man won -- but I respect the Indians for at least trying.
What confounds me -- as I believe it will confound future historians hundreds of years in the future -- is that faced with a similar challenge to their culture AND their land, the Euros are refusing to defend same. Not only here in America, but anywhere there are whites -- when faced with cultural and demographic assaults, they.... give in. Sometimes, without much more than a hint of a struggle.
The Indians had an inferior culture and they were defeated as such. They had the will, but not the wherewithal.
Western whites have the superior culture and the instrumentalities to defend and protect it, yet we are being overthrown by those who are our "lessers".
Not because we couldn't win, but because we no longer want to.
Why...??
-
Western whites have the superior culture and the instrumentalities to defend and protect it, yet we are being overthrown by those who are our "lessers".
Sigh...
-
LOL! Just happy be associated with such good men! :beer:
Sure be nice if we could all get together for a brew one of these days. :salute:
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ I dunno, ask the Indians, lol. ]]
At least the Indians understood what was happening to their way of life with their innundation by the white man, and many fought valiantly in an effort to preserve it.
I'm happy the White Man won -- but I respect the Indians for at least trying.
What confounds me -- as I believe it will confound future historians hundreds of years in the future -- is that faced with a similar challenge to their culture AND their land, the Euros are refusing to defend same. Not only here in America, but anywhere there are whites -- when faced with cultural and demographic assaults, they.... give in. Sometimes, without much more than a hint of a struggle.
The Indians had an inferior culture and they were defeated as such. They had the will, but not the wherewithal.
Western whites have the superior culture and the instrumentalities to defend and protect it, yet we are being overthrown by those who are our "lessers".
Not because we couldn't win, but because we no longer want to.
Why...??
Maybe it's just perspective, you may be just looking at the whole thing from the wrong angle.
Maybe "whites" kicked ass when the fight was about guns and cannons vs. arrows and spears, but as the playing field leveled out, they weren't so tough any more.
It's not that they aren't fighting. They're just losing.
Here's a prediction, one that I would never actually verbalize but one that I feel that your post merits.
"White man" will fade, then disappear.
You can only make a white man by way of two whites mating, every single other combination, including a white and any "color" other than white, isn't white, an any descendant of any combination of a white and a non-white, won't be white so you can't recapture that lost strain ever again.
Enjoy the ride while it lasts.
And thanks for all the fish.
P.S. About those future historians.
They won't be white.
-
Can we still have that beer?
Yes!
I have just the place too.
It's a customer of mine down Miami way.
The place is called Tootsie's Cabaret.
It's a 74,000 square foot gentleman's club.
Great wings!
-
All I know is my church is making a huge push for granting amnesty for illegal aliens here in the United States and its a very conservative church.
-
All I know is my church is making a huge push for granting amnesty for illegal aliens here in the United States and its a very conservative church.
They've had amnesty the entire time that the debate over whether or not to grant them amnesty has been raging.
-
They've had amnesty the entire time that the debate over whether or not to grant them amnesty has been raging.
President Uchtdorf has been pursing this extremely hard in the last couple months even going to the White House. He even met with Obama and the Congressional leadership to get this done by the end of the summer.
-
It has been fun lately. Good discussions... some disagreements here and there but no real acrimony. I swear Luis has attended a higher academic institution in France learning the art of debate. MAC is back! Andy is his awesome self... That leaves you and me DCP to have a few beers and admire it all.
France?
FRANCE?
The Spanish taught the French how to write in complete sentences.
-
Outright violation of the 14th amendment.
I'm curious... how so?
Blanket amnesty is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The same rationale applied to the voting process in Bush v Gore in 2000.
-
Outright violation of the 14th amendment.
I'm curious... how so?
Blanket amnesty is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The leadership has made a decision on this issue and there must be a purpose of making that decision. I think it was a wise decision. There are LDS members in Mexico because they helped settle what is now Salt Lake City and its the fastest growing church there.
-
Outright violation of the 14th amendment.
I'm curious... how so?
Blanket amnesty is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The same rationale applied to the voting process in Bush v Gore in 2000.
How does blanket amnesty deny any person qualifying for amnesty the equal protection of the law?
It doesn't apply to anyone but those receiving the amnesty, and doesn't treat anyone who falls under the category and qualifies for amnesty differently than anyone else.
If there was a different standard used for different persons in the country illegally, then there would be an issue, but that wouldn't be the case since "blanket amnesty" literally translates into everyone that needs amnesty, within the restrictions (criminal activity, etc) would get it.
Persons in the country legally would not have their rights under the EPC violated because their legal status wouldn't be the same as those here illegally.
If we were to issue a "blanket amnesty" for Spanish-speaking immigrants only, then I can see where there could be an issue with the EPC.
In Bush v Gore the argument was that the same citizens (voters) would be treated different in different counties because the standards for counting differed from county to county.
That's a whole different thing.
-
France?
FRANCE?
The Spanish taught the French how to write in complete sentences.
True enough, I suppose. I had the pleasure of working for a French-owned company for some years. I will say I had the most remarkable boss ever while working there. I chose to leave when an Italian company acquired them. Anyway, all the French guys had classes in the art of argument "while at University" (their speak).
-
Luis wrote:
[[ P.S. About those future historians.
They won't be white. ]]
Of course not.
But they won't be Hispanic, either.
They'll be Asian.
-
How does blanket amnesty deny any person qualifying for amnesty the equal protection of the law?
It doesn't apply to anyone but those receiving the amnesty, and doesn't treat anyone who falls under the category and qualifies for amnesty differently than anyone else.
If there was a different standard used for different persons in the country illegally, then there would be an issue, but that wouldn't be the case since "blanket amnesty" literally translates into everyone that needs amnesty, within the restrictions (criminal activity, etc) would get it.
Persons in the country legally would not have their rights under the EPC violated because their legal status wouldn't be the same as those here illegally.
If we were to issue a "blanket amnesty" for Spanish-speaking immigrants only, then I can see where there could be an issue with the EPC.
In Bush v Gore the argument was that the same citizens (voters) would be treated different in different counties because the standards for counting differed from county to county.
That's a whole different thing.
So, to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm talking about amnesty to illegals. The estimated number of illegals runs from 10 million to 20 million, depending on what expert you talk to.
Now, to answer the question you have posed, ask yourself "how does it affect the value of my dollar when the Fed dumps billions of dollars into the economy via Quantatative Easing and all their other tricks? If you can answer that question, then you should be able to extrapolate to the question "how does it affect my citizenship when the government dumps millions of illegals into the legal population base?".
Like I said, a clear violation of the Equal Protection intent of the 14th amendment. My citizenship is being devalued, illegally.
I know none of this will keep them doing what they are hell bent on doing, but, might as well go down fighting.
-
So, to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm talking about amnesty to illegals. The estimated number of illegals runs from 10 million to 20 million, depending on what expert you talk to.
Now, to answer the question you have posed, ask yourself "how does it affect the value of my dollar when the Fed dumps billions of dollars into the economy via Quantatative Easing and all their other tricks? If you can answer that question, then you should be able to extrapolate to the question "how does it affect my citizenship when the government dumps millions of illegals into the legal population base?".
Like I said, a clear violation of the Equal Protection intent of the 14th amendment. My citizenship is being devalued, illegally.
I know none of this will keep them doing what they are hell bent on doing, but, might as well go down fighting.
"... my citizenship is being devalued..."
That's a novel concept.
Having more money in circulation does devalue the worth of your money because it devalues the worth of all money, you're correct there.
However the notion that having more people enjoying the same rights that you enjoy somehow devalues those rights makes no sense to me.
Your (our) citizenship is made up of a certain set of inalienable rights that are recognized by some governments and not by others.
In general, if there is a value assigned to our citizenship it would mean that American citizenship has a higher value than let's say North Korean citizenship because the government of North Korea does not protect those inalienable rights.
Now, unlike the dollar whose value is determined on a finite set of values, our rights are infinite; as Americans we believe that all human beings are born possessing those rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
We're all born with those rights, irrespective of where we are born. Being an American means that those rights will be safeguarded and protected from violation.
If your argument that citizenship can actually be devalued by any means, then our citizenship today is worth just about a third of what it was worth in 1910, since there are about three times as many citizens today as there were then, and 99.1% less than it was at the time that our Constitution was drafted. Yet you don't have 0.009% of the rights that the American citizens of 1780 enjoyed.
That's simply not the case. You have the very same rights they did, in fact the number of constitutionally guaranteed rights have increased since then when you take things like the Emancipation Declaration, women's suffrage, the Civil Rights Act and others into consideration.
I get your frustration, but your XIV Amendment argument doesn't work for me.
-
Luis wrote:
[[ P.S. About those future historians.
They won't be white. ]]
Of course not.
But they won't be Hispanic, either.
They'll be Asian.
I'm not the one worried about what they're going to be.
-
"I get your frustration, but your XIV Amendment argument doesn't work for me."
I never thought it would Luis. I think it's safe to say we view things differently.
This bunch in congress is determined to cram millions of illegals down our throats. IMO it will be unconstitutional. That will not keep them from doing it.
I see many years of RAT rule in my future.
I see the demise of the Republican party in my future. Maybe that's a good thing.
I see the WASP as an endangered species in my future. Maybe that also is a good thing.
I see American Exceptionalism disappearing in my present and in my future. Again, maybe a good thing.
I see granting amnesty to illegals a part of that demise. Again, another good thing???
Who knows? Three more years of Obama could finish us all off.
-
"I get your frustration, but your XIV Amendment argument doesn't work for me."
I never thought it would Luis. I think it's safe to say we view things differently.
The thing is that I gave you a detailed explanation of why it wouldn't, but you have yet to offer anything in the way of explaining exactly HOW it would within the content and legal interpretations of the Amendment.
I get that you feel that a citizenship that can be attained via amnesty decreases the value of your own citizenship, since the legal process is not followed, however, the answer to your concern (it's not going to change your mind in the least bit) lies in the Constitution itself:
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4
Congress can change what those rules of naturalization are at will, and that's what amnesty would amount to.
P.S. Do not mistake my having an understanding of the issue as translating into support for the idea of an uncontrolled border. I just see the issue of the millions already being here as nearly impossible to resolve short of simply letting them stay. We also need to control the border... not close it down, control it.
Arguing about whether or not to grant them amnesty for decades actually amounts to amnesty.
-
Luis wrote:
[[ P.S. About those future historians.
They won't be white. ]]
Of course not.
But they won't be Hispanic, either.
They'll be Asian.
In California both Hispanics and Asians outnumber blacks.
I watched a Japanese American nursery owner (native born American, multi-millionaire, blue collar type of guy) speaking to his helper in Spanish as they worked together on a landscaping job, on one of his properties.
-
In California both Hispanics and Asians outnumber blacks.
I watched a Japanese American nursery owner (native born American, multi-millionaire, blue collar type of guy) speaking to his helper in Spanish as they worked together on a landscaping job, on one of his properties.
Never got this aspect of American culture, at all. :shrug:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING POLY-LINGUAL!!!!
Romney got shit for being able to speak French. GWB got shit for being fluent in Spanish, and the same rumblings were out for Perry, who is also fluent in Spanish. Why is this such a blind spot in American culture?
-
"The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...."
What congress will do is not uniform, i.e. apply equally to all.
It will take a specific group and apply a specific grant of amnesty for a specific purpose. It will specifically dilute the citizen base with illegals. Legal citizen's rights will have been violated. Equal Protection Intent will be violated.
That's the difference.
Congress has passed laws on immigration, which amnesty is not and cannot be. Amnesty is more like legalizing an invasion.
It will be unconstitutional but in the words of the Benghazi Witch, what difference does it make? It will not keep them from doing it.
-
Never got this aspect of American culture, at all. :shrug:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING POLY-LINGUAL!!!!
Romney got shit for being able to speak French. GWB got shit for being fluent in Spanish, and the same rumblings were out for Perry, who is also fluent in Spanish. Why is this such a blind spot in American culture?
I've always wondered how American exceptionalism could be so insecure.
-
"Arguing about whether or not to grant them amnesty for decades actually amounts to amnesty."
Not at all.
It may be procrastination, which our government is famous for, but nothing like amnesty.
After amnesty, they'll be voters. This distinction alone makes it a huge difference.
-
Most people don't know what the term "American Exceptionalism" actually means.
I suspect some of them are posting on this board right now.
-
Most people don't know what the term "American Exceptionalism" actually means.
I suspect some of them are posting on this board right now.
Not trying to be a butt head......but is that necessary?
Furthermore, IMO, more than one definition works for me. It's all good.
-
Not trying to be a butt head......but is that necessary?
Furthermore, IMO, more than one definition works for me. It's all good.
Please take no offense with my post, far be it for me, an English as a second language guy, to correct an Englsih as a native language poster, but shouldn't that be either "not trying to also be a butt head" or even "not trying to be a butt head as well"?
-
Most people don't know what the term "American Exceptionalism" actually means.
I suspect some of them are posting on this board right now.
I always split it into two.
You have American Triumphalism - "Look at what we did!"
The you have Exceptionalism - *spits on hands* "Let's rock."
-
Not trying to be a butt head......but is that necessary?
Furthermore, IMO, more than one definition works for me. It's all good.
Sorry about that DC but that post wasn't mean't to be offensive.
-
Please take no offense with my post, far be it for me, an English as a second language guy, to correct an Englsih as a native language poster, but shouldn't that be either "not trying to also be a butt head" or even "not trying to be a butt head as well"?
Luis, I think he's referring to me.
You get enough heat for things you do, you don't need more heat for things you don't do :)
-
Luis, I think he's referring to me.
You get enough heat for things you do, you don't need more heat for things you don't do :)
Sorry a bout that.
Some of the nuances of the language still escape me.
-
I always split it into two.
You have American Triumphalism - "Look at what we did!"
The you have Exceptionalism - *spits on hands* "Let's rock."
Or, as a Cuban immigrant, I can say that we took exceptionalism and ran with it until we smacked right into triumphalism.
Cubans are usually considered to be the most successful Hispanic immigrant group, with educational and economic profiles near those of the U.S. population as a whole. They constitute the third largest Hispanic immigrant group in the United States, behind only Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.
http://northamericanimmigration.org/77-cuban-immigration.html
Great write up, in spite of the author's glaring error.
Cubans are the SECOND largest "Hispanic" (hate that word) immigrant group in the US, not the third.
Puerto Ricans are born US citizens.
They don't migrate to the US... they move here.
-
Or, as a Cuban immigrant, I can say that we took exceptionalism and ran with it until we smacked right into triumphalism.
Great write up, in spite of the author's glaring error.
Cubans are the SECOND largest "Hispanic" (hate that word) immigrant group in the US, not the third.
Puerto Ricans are born US citizens.
They don't migrate to the US... they move here.
I know a hell of a lot of Cuban emigrants to the USA for some reason. They tend to either go military or go seriously high tech stuff. Hassle them - you hassle me. You don't really want to hassle me. :beer: They'll give you the shirt off their back. If they ain't wearing a shirt, they'll find you something to keep the sun off.
Often pondered what may have happened if Castro never came to power.
-
One of my dearest friends was Cuban. Most vibrant, alive person I have ever known. He immigrated to the US with his parents when he was very young. I have never known anyone who hated someone else like he hated Castro. His parents had owned a sugar plantation in Cuba and lost it all. I can tell many stories of my travels with him. He married a former Miss Colombia.
My friend died in the Dominican Republic a couple years back of a self-inflicted gunshot. I still have not come to terms with it.
-
My friend died in the Dominican Republic a couple years back of a self-inflicted gunshot. I still have not come to terms with it.
I am so sorry, my friend. It hurts so bleep much when that happens.
-
I am so sorry, my friend. It hurts so bleeping much when that happens.
Yes. Yes it does.
-
Yes. Yes it does.
Can I tell you something that sometimes helps? Not always.
He ain'r gone. Not until no one remembers him.
-
Can I tell you something that sometimes helps? Not always.
He ain'r gone. Not until no one remembers him.
Thank you EC. It means a lot. You are a good friend.
-
Sorry about that DC but that post wasn't mean't to be offensive.
No...I'm sorry. Just got back home and it looks like I completely misread your post.
.....which is funny because on its own...I still read it the same way. Need a drink! :patriot:
-
Thank you EC. It means a lot. You are a good friend.
There is a very uniquely Cuban thing that you don't see outside of South Florida.
Cuban restaurants and bakeries (Cuban bakeries are more lunch counters than bakeries) all have a service window. Imagine a walk-up drive through window.
Cubans stand there and buy cafecitos (shots of Cuban coffee) some with steamed milk, others just straight up, and we talk and argue about politics.
There are a lot of heated, loud disagreements about local politics... and beisbol. The two things Cubans are the most passionate about.
Rubio or Cruz, the Marlins of the Bronx Bombers.
There is ONE thing we are always in agreement about.
We hate the Castro brothers.
Tomorrow, I'm going to stop by one of those windows, raise a cup of Cubano in your friend's name, and talk about hating Fidel.
I hope he enjoys that.
-
There is a very uniquely Cuban thing that you don't see outside of South Florida.
Cuban restaurants and bakeries (Cuban bakeries are more lunch counters than bakeries) all have a service window. Imagine a walk-up drive through window.
Cubans stand there and buy cafecitos (shots of Cuban coffee) some with steamed milk, others just straight up, and we talk and argue about politics.
There are a lot of heated, loud disagreements about local politics... and beisbol. The two things Cubans are the most passionate about.
Rubio or Cruz, the Marlins of the Bronx Bombers.
There is ONE thing we are always in agreement about.
We hate the Castro brothers.
Tomorrow, I'm going to stop by one of those windows, raise a cup of Cubano in your friend's name, and talk about hating Fidel.
I hope he enjoys that.
Oh my. I am moved - deeply. Everyone called him Geno - short for Eugenio. When he lived in the States, he lived in Coral Gables and he adored his parents who lived nearby. He did not realize he had a son until after the boy had grown to adulthood. They bonded immediately.
I met him in Medellin, Colombia and we became friends immediately. He was handsome, charismatic and so damn funny. Short of George Clooney, I have never seen anyone with so many beautiful women on his arm. He called them "vampires". I spent 13 months in Trinidad with him and we had total trust in one another. Spent a lot of time elsewhere with him but we had the most fun together in Colombia and Barbados. So many stories... they would sound like fiction if I told them all.
He and I once went to a party in Bogota with Rick James. Yes, that Rick James. And that was the beginning. I have never known anyone so alive. Ever.
Thank you Luis. Sincerely.
-
Just ENFORCE existing laws that prevent access to any and all PUBLIC SERVICES.
Great rant.
The problem is that existing laws grants them access to public services.
What specific services are you speaking about other than Hospital emergency room access? Generally speaking, illegal aliens do not have access to Medicaid, SSi, or food stamps. Anchor babies are a completely different issue, however.
-
What specific services are you speaking about other than Hospital emergency room access? Generally speaking, illegal aliens do not have access to Medicaid, SSi, or food stamps. Anchor babies are a completely different issue, however.
LOL! "Food Stamps"? In Montgomery County, Maryland they certainly do. Also, rent vouchers, driver's licenses and medical care.
It must be seen to be believed....you cannot comprehend how much of a minority Caucasians are.
In more than one zipcode, you can go hours without even SEEING one.
I'm afraid Maryland has socialism down to a science.
-
What specific services are you speaking about other than Hospital emergency room access? Generally speaking, illegal aliens do not have access to Medicaid, SSi, or food stamps. Anchor babies are a completely different issue, however.
Illegal aliens can't be denied schooling. That's not just for anchor babies, but for children who came here illegally with their parents. The kids probably qualify for free school lunch programs because the law says that you can't deny a child a school lunch based on their parent's legal status. In fact, I don't think that a school can ask a parent what their legal status is.
You can't deny them services from first responders because they respond to situations regardless of the legal status of the individual in that situation.
They don't need Medicaid because they can't be denied service at an ER, which for all intent and purposes is the same as having Medicaid.
Otherwise, and as you pointed out, they are denied public services already, and yet they don't leave.
Funny thing is that a significant majority of them pay into Social Security and again (as you pointed out), they derive no benefits from it. They pay all other applicable taxes general taxes (the taxes we all pay beyond income and SS taxes) which are used to fund Federal, State and local programs that they draw no benefits from.
-
LOL! "Food Stamps"? In Montgomery County, Maryland they certainly do. Also, rent vouchers, driver's licenses and medical care.
It must be seen to be believed....you cannot comprehend how much of a minority Caucasians are.
In more than one zipcode, you can go hours without even SEEING one.
I'm afraid Maryland has socialism down to a science.
Or at least one that still has his wallet.
-
Illegal aliens can't be denied schooling. That's not just for anchor babies, but for children who came here illegally with their parents. The kids probably qualify for free school lunch programs because the law says that you can't deny a child a school lunch based on their parent's legal status. In fact, I don't think that a school can ask a parent what their legal status is.
You can't deny them services from first responders because they respond to situations regardless of the legal status of the individual in that situation.
They don't need Medicaid because they can't be denied service at an ER, which for all intent and purposes is the same as having Medicaid.
Otherwise, and as you pointed out, they are denied public services already, and yet they don't leave.
Funny thing is that a significant majority of them pay into Social Security and again (as you pointed out), they derive no benefits from it. They pay all other applicable taxes general taxes (the taxes we all pay beyond income and SS taxes) which are used to fund Federal, State and local programs that they draw no benefits from.
Medicaid is much more expansive than mere emergency room access and covers an extensive variety of procedures and drugs. You are correct that the illegal aliens pay payroll taxes if the employer deducts it from their income (many are paid under the table in cash and pay nothing). However, even if withheld they rarely pay any other taxes, primarily due to their low incomes and due to the child tax credit which can be a credit of $1,000 per child. If the illegal has several children he or she will receive considerably MORE from the government than the trifle amount they pay in payroll taxes. Approximately five billion dollars was given to illegal immigrants last year. Due to the child tax credit, the IRS has essentially become a welfare program.
-
Medicaid is much more expansive than mere emergency room access and covers an extensive variety of procedures and drugs. You are correct that the illegal aliens pay payroll taxes if the employer deducts it from their income (many are paid under the table in cash and play nothing). However, even if withheld they rarely pay any other taxes, primarily due to their low incomes and due to the child tax credit which can be a credit of $1,000 per child. If the illegal has several children he or she will receive considerably MORE from the government than the trifle amount they pay in payroll taxes. Approximately five billion dollars was given to illegal immigrants last year. Due to the child tax credit, the IRS has essentially become a welfare program.
How do illegals manage NOT to pay taxes on gas?
How do they avoid paying taxes on shirts, shoes, cigarettes, prepared meals at Taco Bell (I know... that's racist), tickets for The Amazing Spiderman 2, etc?
If they pay rent, they're paying the owner's real estate taxes.
How do they avoid paying tolls on tolled highways.
The revealing thing about your post is the lack of understanding of just how many taxes we actually all pay.
The five billion given to illegal aliens last year is more than covered by the monies that the Federal government deposits in the IRS's earnings suspense file yearly.
Google that.
-
Luis - not sure if you caught my modified post, but everyone called my friend Geno. He'd like that salute!
-
Oh my. I am moved - deeply. Everyone called him Geno - short for Eugenio. When he lived in the States, he lived in Coral Gables and he adored his parents who lived nearby. He did not realize he had a son until after the boy had grown to adulthood. They bonded immediately.
I met him in Medellin, Colombia and we became friends immediately. He was handsome, charismatic and so damn funny. Short of George Clooney, I have never seen anyone with so many beautiful women on his arm. He called them "vampires". I spent 13 months in Trinidad with him and we had total trust in one another. Spent a lot of time elsewhere with him but we had the most fun together in Colombia and Barbados. So many stories... they would sound like fiction if I told them all.
He and I once went to a party in Bogota with Rick James. Yes, that Rick James. And that was the beginning. I have never known anyone so alive. Ever.
Thank you Luis. Sincerely.
That's quite a moving story Lando, and I'm truly sorry for the loss of your friend. Sounds like you might have a few more such stories of him you'll share from time to time. A Hemingway type of personality?
-
A Hemingway type of personality?
You know...? I'm surprised I never quite had that perspective. But yes... his sense of adventure was always intense but then, he had those lows. Very apt analogy. Thanks for suggesting it.
But, oh my... his hatred for Castro was a hissing, visceral, emotional, deep-in-the-soul hatred.
-
Luis - not sure if you caught my modified post, but everyone called my friend Geno. He'd like that salute!
I caught it.
In fact, knowing that he lived in Coral Gables makes me think that he probably knew the quintessential Cuban coffee window/political soap box.
It's just outside of the Gables and every politician looking to secure the Cuban vote goes there.
It's called Versailles.
Bet you that he drank coffee there.
This is what it looks like on any typical afternoon.
(http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/shortorder/VersaillesLine.jpg)
Here's one of the many familiar faces that have paid homage at the Versailles window over the years.
(https://cmgelb.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/6a00d8341c4df253ef00e54f5fd5858833-800wi.jpg)
Geno knew that place well I bet.
For 40 years, Versailles has been a landmark in the Miami community, and its flagship location in the heart of Little Havana has become Miami’s unofficial town center and one of the most popular tourist attractions in the city. The restaurant is famous not only for its delicious Cuban food, but also for the important clientele that visits while in the area from U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to major celebrities and movie stars, the famous have always made Versailles a must-stop in Miami.
“We are proud to share this prestigious award with our agency, República, as they executed the vision we had for this special milestone and brought to life in a very special way,” said Nicole Valls, vice president of Valls Group. “It’s humbling for our family to witness what started as a small restaurant, gain global praise and a solid reputation as “The World’s Most Famous Cuban Restaurant.™”
It won't be today, but it will be soon. I'll go there and a coffee and hate Fidel with Geno in mind.
-
I'll go there and a coffee and hate Fidel with Geno in mind.
Nice!
-
"I'm afraid Maryland has socialism down to a science."
Maryland has communism down to a science.
They've chased out big business and high income earners and now are an oasis for LIVs, freeloaders and misfits.
-
Nice!
Not the place in Little Havana, but populated with a notoriously Castro-hating crowd.
I downed one for your friend today.
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa32/blue3711/9a3e91ef-1c1f-4556-8c4d-aa69105d4dea_zps128c96db.jpg)
Geno!
-
Geno! Salute!
(Thank you Luis!)
-
How do illegals manage NOT to pay taxes on gas?
How do they avoid paying taxes on shirts, shoes, cigarettes, prepared meals at Taco Bell (I know... that's racist), tickets for The Amazing Spiderman 2, etc?
If they pay rent, they're paying the owner's real estate taxes.
How do they avoid paying tolls on tolled highways.
The revealing thing about your post is the lack of understanding of just how many taxes we actually all pay.
The five billion given to illegal aliens last year is more than covered by the monies that the Federal government deposits in the IRS's earnings suspense file yearly.
Google that.
Unlawful immigrants do pay some gas taxes and tolls. However, they also contribute to their wear and destruction. They create the necessity for new roads. Unlawful immigrants pay some sales, use and property taxes. But, they also create a cost for teachers, translators and new schools. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services cost US taxpayers plenty. According to a study by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, PhD, In 2010 the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit of $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.
It is true that unlawful immigrants pay FICA taxes if withheld by their employer, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 in FICA taxes, including the match by their employer. If amnesty is granted, that individual is likely to draw more than $3,00 in Social Security and Medicare for every dollar in FICA taxes he paid. If the unlawful immigrant has three children, he/she will immediately receive $3,000 back from the federal government in child tax credits Currently, the unlawful immigrant household receives $2.40 in benefits and services for each dollar paid in taxes. The reveling portion of your post is your apparent failure to understand how much government costs and the considerable deficit caused by unlawful immigrants. Our nation does not need any more unlawful net tax consumers.
-
Unlawful immigrants do pay some gas taxes and tolls. However, they also contribute to their wear and destruction. They create the necessity for new roads. Unlawful immigrants pay some sales, use and property taxes. But, they also create a cost for teachers, translators and new schools. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services cost US taxpayers plenty. According to a study by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, PhD, In 2010 the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit of $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.
It is true that unlawful immigrants pay FICA taxes if withheld by their employer, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 in FICA taxes, including the match by their employer. If amnesty is granted, that individual is likely to draw more than $3,00 in Social Security and Medicare for every dollar in FICA taxes he paid. If the unlawful immigrant has three children, he/she will immediately receive $3,000 back from the federal government in child tax credits Currently, the unlawful immigrant household receives $2.40 in benefits and services for each dollar paid in taxes. The reveling portion of your post is your apparent failure to understand how much government costs and the considerable deficit caused by unlawful immigrants. Our nation does not need any more unlawful net tax consumers.
Excellent post.
Do you have a link for this study?
According to a study by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, PhD, In 2010
-
Unlawful immigrants do pay some gas taxes and tolls. However, they also contribute to their wear and destruction. They create the necessity for new roads. Unlawful immigrants pay some sales, use and property taxes. But, they also create a cost for teachers, translators and new schools. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services cost US taxpayers plenty. According to a study by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, PhD, In 2010 the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit of $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.
It is true that unlawful immigrants pay FICA taxes if withheld by their employer, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 in FICA taxes, including the match by their employer. If amnesty is granted, that individual is likely to draw more than $3,00 in Social Security and Medicare for every dollar in FICA taxes he paid. If the unlawful immigrant has three children, he/she will immediately receive $3,000 back from the federal government in child tax credits Currently, the unlawful immigrant household receives $2.40 in benefits and services for each dollar paid in taxes. The reveling portion of your post is your apparent failure to understand how much government costs and the considerable deficit caused by unlawful immigrants. Our nation does not need any more unlawful net tax consumers.
They pay taxes on every drop of gas they use; there's no way to avoid that.
They pay taxes on every taxable item they purchase anywhere. There's no tax exempt status for being an illegal immigrant.
I have a little bit of a background in accounting, and I know that no ledger is properly filled when in only contains credits. That's what your argument is... an unbalanced ledger entry made up solely of credits.
Let me try and balance that spreadsheet for you.
Your previous post put the cost of illegal immigrants at roughly five billion dollars per year. The IRS's Earning Suspense File is growing at a rate of $41 billion a year since 1990, four years after the Reagan amnesty. That file is driven by taxes paid into the SSA by illegal immigrants using bad Social Security numbers. Couple that with every dollar in taxes they pay that they can't avoid paying, and calculate how many people are employed by the Walmarts running on the buying power of 11 million illegal aliens and you realize (if you keep an open mind on the subject) that they don't cost the government as much as the government benefits financially from their presence, and THAT is why government is so recalcitrant toward controlling their entry and continued presence here.
The costs of the things that you list as being problems with illegal aliens, are DWARFED by the same costs of the same benefits received by American citizens on the dole. For every single illegal alien sucking from the government teat, there are 4 citizens doing the same.
To me, and in all the years that I've spent arguing this issue, every time someone like you makes the "negative financial impact of illegal immigrants" argument, it comes right back to two points...
- the reason that they're here is because government inaction let them in, and government inaction is what sustains their continued stay. The reason for the inaction by government is that they provide financial benefits TO the government.
- The problem with the "negative financial impact of illegal aliens" argument is that in actuality illustrates a problem with our society and our government, since all those costs ONLY exist because the programs were created by government. In other words, and if we're to believe every single other conservative talking point on our entitlement society, illegal aliens are just ONE of the SYMPTOMS of the problem that is a government-crafted entitlement society.
We can't logically make both the following arguments, repeatedly made by conservatives:
- American blacks are enslaved and victimized by the benefits they receive stemming from a runaway system of government entitlements.
- Illegal aliens are vile abusers and victimize America by way of the benefits they receive from a runaway system of government entitlements.
The problem is the system, not the people who take advantage of it.
-
The problem is the system, not the people who take advantage of it.
Very true. We believe in self-interest, don't we? People who act in their self-interest to take advantage of a system that is beyond their control are just doing what comes naturally. It is as true for fat cats who buy off politicians as it is for immigrants.
It is the reason why we should limit government power, have very few rules, and enforce vigorously those that few that we do have.
-
Very true. We believe in self-interest, don't we? People who act in their self-interest to take advantage of a system that is beyond their control are just doing what comes naturally. It is as true for fat cats who buy off politicians as it is for immigrants.
It is the reason why we should limit government power, have very few rules, and enforce vigorously those that few that we do have.
Hear, hear!
-
We're supposed to also believe in the rule of law.
The Benghazi Witch was right. I think she should use her infamous statement as a campaign slogan.
-
The bottom line is simple.
NO AMNESTY.
NOT NOW.
NOT EVER.
-
My personal view is that there should be amnesty but no path to citizenship or eligibility for public benefits. It is not an issue I regard as critical at this point because I am not all that uncomfortable with the laws we have now. I do think it would be monumentally stupid for the GOP to deal with this issue at this juncture.
-
The bottom line is simple.
NO AMNESTY.
NOT NOW.
NOT EVER.
I have a slogan for the pubbies that have the nads to use it...
"NO MORE LUCY AND THE FOOTBALL"
-
My personal view is that there should be amnesty but no path to citizenship or eligibility for public benefits. It is not an issue I regard as critical at this point because I am not all that uncomfortable with the laws we have now. I do think it would be monumentally stupid for the GOP to deal with this issue at this juncture.
I believe that rewarding lawbreakers in the name of political expediency is not only monumentally stupid, it is morally wrong.
-
I have a slogan for the pubbies that have the nads to use it...
"NO MORE LUCY AND THE FOOTBALL"
:amen:
-
I believe that rewarding lawbreakers in the name of political expediency is not only monumentally stupid, it is morally wrong.
Isn't that what plea bargain arrangements do? And that comes from every type of crime from murder to rape to robbery, etc. They're offered to make life easier for the prosecution and offer a deal for a guilty plea. In the immigration arena, a plea bargain would mean the illegal had to turn himself in, pay fines, get in line and be working. I'm not sure I see a lot of difference except that the illegal couldn't have been charged with a serious felony unlike those legally here.
According to one report, 97% of federal and 94% of state cases end in plea deals that result in lesser charges and/or lesser sentences. That would encompass some pretty heinous crimes.
-
Isn't that what plea bargain arrangements do? And that comes from every type of crime from murder to rape to robbery, etc. They're offered to make life easier for the prosecution and offer a deal for a guilty plea. In the immigration arena, a plea bargain would mean the illegal had to turn himself in, pay fines, get in line and be working. I'm not sure I see a lot of difference except that the illegal couldn't have been charged with a serious felony unlike those legally here.
According to one report, 97% of federal and 94% of state cases end in plea deals that result in lesser charges and/or lesser sentences. That would encompass some pretty heinous crimes.
Exactly right.
Plea bargaining agreements are also monumentally stupid and morally wrong.
I don't care if the prosecutors have to work harder to prove their case. It's their damned job!
-
Exactly right.
Plea bargaining agreements are also monumentally stupid and morally wrong.
I don't care if the prosecutors have to work harder to prove their case. It's their damned job!
Victim advocacy groups would certainly agree with you in certain types of cases especially domestic violence issues. Having said that though, why shouldn't a judge have the flexibility of lower sentences if the perp pleads guilty and saves the state the cost of a jury trial? And for the same reasons, why shouldn't a prosecutor have some discretion in offering lesser charges?
Providing a pathway to legalization for some illegals is simply an extension of that flexibility. And yes, I understand the emotions surrounding immigration, but I believe it will happen, and if the GOP doesn't participate in a reasonable fashion, either Obama will find ways to legalize many who shouldn't be, and/or we continue to have millions unidentified, living off of crime and the state.
-
Victim advocacy groups would certainly agree with you in certain types of cases especially domestic violence issues. Having said that though, why shouldn't a judge have the flexibility of lower sentences if the perp pleads guilty and saves the state the cost of a jury trial? And for the same reasons, why shouldn't a prosecutor have some discretion in offering lesser charges?
Providing a pathway to legalization for some illegals is simply an extension of that flexibility. And yes, I understand the emotions surrounding immigration, but I believe it will happen, and if the GOP doesn't participate in a reasonable fashion, either Obama will find ways to legalize many who shouldn't be, and/or we continue to have millions unidentified, living off of crime and the state.
You really have to look no further than the records of repeat offenders to see where that "flexibility" is a very crappy idea. A very large number of these criminal acts are committed by people that are no strangers at all to the "criminal justice system".
The very same thing applies to AMNESTY. These people have a long history and established habit of flouting our laws. It doesn't just stop with ILLEGALLY (what part of this word is so damned hard to understand?) crossing our borders.
There is an existing pathway to citizenship that is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason or justification to kick the people that have come to this country according to that legal path, in the balls, just to appease some damned lawbreakers, is there?
Take a good hard honest look at what the motivation for this AMNESTY discussion is in the first place and then tell me that it doesn't make you sick to your stomach. Granting AMNESTY is not going to help the GOP Establishment at the polls one little bit. It will not result in Libtards and/or the Media Maggots liking the GOP Establishment at all. You can put that in the bank.
AMNESTY will have no positive outcome what-so-ever and that is a FACT.
-
You really have to look no further than the records of repeat offenders to see where that "flexibility" is a very crappy idea. A very large number of these criminal acts are committed by people that are no strangers at all to the "criminal justice system".
The very same thing applies to AMNESTY. These people have a long history and established habit of flouting our laws. It doesn't just stop with ILLEGALLY (what part of this word is so damned hard to understand?) crossing our borders.
There is an existing pathway to citizenship that is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason or justification to kick the people that have come to this country according to that legal path, in the balls, just to appease some damned lawbreakers, is there?
Take a good hard honest look at what the motivation for this AMNESTY discussion is in the first place and then tell me that it doesn't make you sick to your stomach. Granting AMNESTY is not going to help the GOP Establishment at the polls one little bit. It will not result in Libtards and/or the Media Maggots liking the GOP Establishment at all. You can put that in the bank.
AMNESTY will have no positive outcome what-so-ever and that is a FACT.
Amnesty isn't what it should be. Any legalization should result one by one and be provided to those who have no serious criminal history, who have a means of support other than the state, pay fees and penalties, have been here for a set period of time, and get in the back of the line.
Whether it helps republicans at the polls or not, refusing to negotiate this issue will certainly hurt them, as it's done in the past. Outside of the political issue though, immigration reform can achieve a number of goals the right has wanted for years.
So whether it could have any positive outcome, opponents said the same thing eight years ago when this issue became front-burner. What positive outcome came of that? Are we better off or worse off today? That was a rhetorical question.
-
Exactly right.
Plea bargaining agreements are also monumentally stupid and morally wrong.
I don't care if the prosecutors have to work harder to prove their case. It's their damned job!
Not really. If it weren't for the plea system the courts would have to be increased by 10 fold.
The answer is to make the plea agreement forceful and make the perp serve the max.
Also, if you do away with the plea system you eliminate the possibility of leveraging the perp to get the bigger fish.
-
Not really. If it weren't for the plea system the courts would have to be increased by 10 fold.
The answer is to make the plea agreement forceful and make the perp serve the max.
Also, if you do away with the plea system you eliminate the possibility of leveraging the perp to get the bigger fish.
Hell....just waterboard them....they'll give them up! :bolt:
-
Hell....just waterboard them....they'll give them up! :bolt:
Oh, I'm all for that.
Give em the Jack Bauer special.
-
Not really. If it weren't for the plea system the courts would have to be increased by 10 fold.
The answer is to make the plea agreement forceful and make the perp serve the max.
Also, if you do away with the plea system you eliminate the possibility of leveraging the perp to get the bigger fish.
First we have to stop the idiotic practice of coddling the evil-doers. Take away the a/c, flat screens and dorm like living quarters and let them start making little rocks out of big rocks again. Take the revolving doors off of the prisons and replace them with serious punishment and these problems will settle the hell down. Guaranteed.
-
I am probably alone in this thinking here on this site, but I think our existing laws are decidedly too anti-immigrant, and that has contributed to the problem. Now, now. Here me out.
If we go back to the 1950's and 60's when we didn't have a welfare state, and people could come and go as they pleased, there really was no problem. People came up to pick fruit or whatever, and when the work was done they went back. But then we made social welfare and unemployment available, so there was an economic incentive to just stay and do the seasonal work and collect unemployment the rest of the year. The increase in border security also became a deterrent to coming and going. It was easier to just move the family over once and be done with it.
The whole problem is caused by the economic divide between the US and Mexico. Increasing border security and keeping migrant workers out will only widen the gap between the two countries. We are both better off by allowing their workers in. We get cheap labor to produce more affordable products, and they get much needed capital to improve their economy. Free trade is always a win/win in the long run, and far better than erecting barriers, which only empowers government and special interest groups.
I propose that we loosen up our laws and let anyone in who is qualified and wants to work, but strictly enforce the law insofar as qualifying for public assistance and other benefits, which should be a prerogative of citizenship. If it were up to me, this would include voting and access to public education. The end result would be a robust exchange of labor between our two countries with the hope of creating a future common market. It would also check states and especially the federal government from becoming too socialistic, whereas increasing border security only incentivizes socialism.
In the end, we'd have a more secure border because most people would be coming through routinely, and our security apparatus could focus on those who are truly a security threat.
The problem with immigration is the government isn't dealing with it as the Constitution says. The Constitution says congress is to make a UNIFORM code of immigration. That bit of wisdom went out long ago. We now have policies for illegals, policies for the kids of illegals, policies for criminals, policies for muslims, policies for Europeans, etc., etc. When a government attempts to be all things to all people, they wind up being worthless to everyone. Eventually chaos ensues from all the different laws for different ethnic groups and a tyranny becomes the answer to low information voters.
-
The problem with immigration is the government isn't dealing with it as the Constitution says. The Constitution says congress is to make a UNIFORM code of immigration. That bit of wisdom went out long ago. We now have policies for illegals, policies for the kids of illegals, policies for criminals, policies for muslims, policies for Europeans, etc., etc. When a government attempts to be all things to all people, they wind up being worthless to everyone. Eventually chaos ensues from all the different laws for different ethnic groups and a tyranny becomes the answer to low information voters.
The Constitution directs Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, which is the process whereby an immigrant gains citizenship. The Constitution is silent on the topic of immigration itself.