|
Incidentally, the average time it takes to "cross the borders and be a citizen properly" is I believe 8-10 years. And that's 100% due to US bureaucracy.
So yeah, not really an option.
There is still this - during those 8-10 years you are trying to legally become a citizen, you basically have almost all of the rights of a citizen, excepting perhaps voting. You can be here as an immigrant and have work, a home, a job, whatever property you can afford and little fear of losing any of it, short of some major messup on your part. And again, we make 1 million new citizens a year through naturalization so its not like nobody crosses legally and goes through the paperwork. A million+ people every year attest to the fact that it can be done.
|
|
So my question is what about immigrants in general? Do you have a problem with legal immigrants?
I don't.
I think the polls tend to show between 60 and 80% of the American population has no beef with legal immigrants, though that number apparently fluctuates with unemployment. There is always 20% or so that seem to be in favor of no immigration, but I would like to know what that percent might be in other countries before I start making judgments on what that 1/5 mean regarding American attitudes.
|
For all the people who simply declare, "They need to come here legally!"
One question: if that was at all possible, don't you think they'd do so, rather than (in many cases) pay their life savings, and themselves into slavery, so that some coyote can smuggle them across -- or maybe just kill them and leave the bodies in the desert? Or are all illegals so stupid that if you offer them a choice between "get legal citizenship" or "likely be raped and killed, but maybe sneak across," they'd choose the latter out of pure spite?
For every 10,000 people who want to come across, work hard, and make a life for themselves and their families, there's like 1 opening. Yes, the border needs to be secured against drug gangs, etc. Yes, I'd very much like to make sure the people coming across were vaccinated, paid for their health care, etc. And yes, it would be a lot easier to do these things if there were some legal mechanism by which they might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting in, without a 30-year wait.
bush pushed for that. Dems AND Repubs rejected it. the status cannot remain quo, sorry.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume I know more about the border situation, the people coming across and the dangers of an unsecured border than most of the people on these boards. I am also going to go out on a limb and assume that people like Samnell and anyone else trying to put a purely racist spin on the issue are completely ignorant of the reality of the border and should be sentenced to do time in Nogales or Yuma for a spell and see first hand how "harmless" the situation is.
Oh, well, who cares about reality when you can belittle people who have to live with the reality any chance you get, right?
|
So my question is what about immigrants in general? Do you have a problem with legal immigrants?I don't.
I think the polls tend to show between 60 and 80% of the American population has no beef with legal immigrants, though that number apparently fluctuates with unemployment. There is always 20% or so that seem to be in favor of no immigration, but I would like to know what that percent might be in other countries before I start making judgments on what that 1/5 mean regarding American attitudes.
Well I've looked into legal immigrations to other countries. It seems that if you have no criminal record, and are a form a skilled worker (degree holder, or tradesman)(also depending on degree and trade) most applications are just formalities. Otherwise it's a shot in the dark. Mind you I've only looked at european countries. they also require you to have a working knowledge of the national language.
Why not just take the simple solution and annex Mexico before Mexico annexes you.
Off course that would give the USA it's very own internal terrorist problems in Yucatan..
|
|
Well I've looked into legal immigrations to other countries. It seems that if you have no criminal record, and are a form a skilled worker (degree holder, or tradesman) most applications are just formalities. Otherwise it's a shot in the dark.So my question is what about immigrants in general? Do you have a problem with legal immigrants?I don't.
I think the polls tend to show between 60 and 80% of the American population has no beef with legal immigrants, though that number apparently fluctuates with unemployment. There is always 20% or so that seem to be in favor of no immigration, but I would like to know what that percent might be in other countries before I start making judgments on what that 1/5 mean regarding American attitudes.
Well we do have the privilege of being the one country in the world more people want to go to than any other. Again, we tend to import more people into this country than all of the other countries in the world combined. And that's just counting legal immigrants. With that sort of influx I think its understandable that we have a slightly longer waiting list than other countries. But I know several immigrants from european countries and they've never made any complaints about the setup. At least two of them married into my family and while, IIRC, there was a bit of a question as to when my cousins wedding would be do to the timing of his fiancee's status being approved it was a fairly minor difficulty.
|
|
Well I've looked into legal immigrations to other countries. It seems that if you have no criminal record, and are a form a skilled worker (degree holder, or tradesman)(also depending on degree and trade) most applications are just formalities. Otherwise it's a shot in the dark. Mind you I've only looked at european countries. they also require you to have a working knowledge of the national language.So my question is what about immigrants in general? Do you have a problem with legal immigrants?I don't.
I think the polls tend to show between 60 and 80% of the American population has no beef with legal immigrants, though that number apparently fluctuates with unemployment. There is always 20% or so that seem to be in favor of no immigration, but I would like to know what that percent might be in other countries before I start making judgments on what that 1/5 mean regarding American attitudes.
Considering most illegal immigrants cannot meet two of the three above requirements (most illegals aren't criminals in their country of origin), I don't see the problem with protecting the border.
I wonder how many Canadians realize their border isn't open to Hispanics. Many of my Mexican U.S. citizen friends get the third degree when they try to visit Canada. I was driving when the Canadian equivalent of ICE held us up for an hour at the Windsor crossing while they grilled my Mexican buddy to ensure he, in fact, was a U.S. citizen and not carrying false documents.
|
For all the people who simply declare, "They need to come here legally!"
One question: if that was at all possible, don't you think they'd do so, rather than (in many cases) pay their life savings, and themselves into slavery, so that some coyote can smuggle them across -- or maybe just kill them and leave the bodies in the desert? Or are all illegals so stupid that if you offer them a choice between "get legal citizenship" or "likely be raped and killed, but maybe sneak across," they'd choose the latter out of pure spite?
For every 10,000 people who want to come across, work hard, and make a life for themselves and their families, there's like 1 opening. Yes, the border needs to be secured against drug gangs, etc. Yes, I'd very much like to make sure the people coming across were vaccinated, paid for their health care, etc. And yes, it would be a lot easier to do these things if there were some legal mechanism by which they might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting in, without a 30-year wait.
bush pushed for that. Dems AND Repubs rejected it. the status cannot remain quo, sorry.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume I know more about the border situation, the people coming across and the dangers of an unsecured border than most of the people on these boards. I am also going to go out on a limb and assume that people like Samnell and anyone else trying to put a purely racist spin on the issue are completely ignorant of the reality of the border and should be sentenced to do time in Nogales or Yuma for a spell and see first hand how "harmless" the situation is.
Oh, well, who cares about reality when you can belittle people who have to live with the reality any chance you get, right?
I think, however, that a lot of the violence that is emerging on the border has less to do with illegal immigration as such and more to do with the drug gang violence that is gaining hold in Mexico. And which is fuelled by American indulgence in illegal substances. Most illegal immigrants just want a job - many developing countries have high unemployment, especially in rural areas. You don't generally pay away your life savings to a people smuggler to laze about on benefits - you want a return on your investment - and indeed those willing to make such a leap are often have more drive to be successful and therefore would make (and in the case of the US, an immigrant country, generally have made) a more dynamic economy and society. While you don't want to let just anyone in, anything that makes labour and therefore end products cheaper is surely a good idea for the country as a whole. And that, generally, is what is happening.
I also find it somewhat amusing to see someone upthread berating illegal immigrants in the context of farming. Agriculture in the US (as elsewhere) hoovers up massive amounts of state subsidy, costing the taxpayer a fortune and increasing costs for the consumer. I would suggest it isn't obvious what costs more.
Sure, maybe you just want to come here and get a job and work hard to support your wife and kids. But how about this: Did you get the same vaccinations we require our citizens to have?
As a point of fact, the United States of America does NOT require anyone to be vaccinated. It's a smart idea, best thing for the kids, but no police force will kick in your door and arrest you if, for whatever reason, you decide to not vaccinate your child.
Are you a drug addict?
Simply put, you do not have to be an illegal immigrant to be a drug addict.
Do you really hate our country for some percieved past wrong (real or imagined)?
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols certainly did, and they were born here. McVeigh served in the 1st Gulf War.
In order to get here, are you smuggling contraband in (drugs, counterfit money) or back out (illegally obtained weapons your country prohibits)? Are you a wanted criminal in your own country?Are these not legitimate concerns for any given nation regarding immigration (legal or not)?
These last few are legitimate arguments. America has every right to ask these sort of questions to potential citizens.
Just thought I'd weigh in on this. I used to live in Arizona for 7 years.
Here is an idea; if a woman, not a U.S. citizen, gives birth to a baby on U.S. soil, she can petition for her child to be granted citizenship, but that citizenship is not automatically bestowed.
Would that be a better idea?
DogBone
|
|
Here is an idea; if a woman, not a U.S. citizen, gives birth to a baby on U.S. soil, she can petition for her child to be granted citizenship, but that citizenship is not automatically bestowed.
Would that be a better idea?DogBone
I am fine with this idea if she is here legally.
If the woman broke the law to enter the US and then had a child here, then no. Both should be deported to their own country. If the child grows up and attempts to legally immigrate here their parents choice should not be held against them. Nor should those choices help them.
It's really simple. Break the law as a non citizen and you are out of here. If you wish to return, cross the t's and dot the i's at the embassy and wait your turn. And yes, if you entered prior to that illegally then that should be taken into account when you apply. Not an automatic disqualifier, but part of the whole picture. Those applicants with the best resumes that fill job openings where there is a shortage get first preference. And if you don't begin the citizenship process within a reasonable time, you may have to leave and reapply.
|
|
Incidentally, the average time it takes to "cross the borders and be a citizen properly" is I believe 8-10 years. And that's 100% due to US bureaucracy.
So yeah, not really an option.
Yeah, so if it isn't an option, why the hell are they breaking the law and doing it anyway?
Because they aren't interested in "citizenship". They are interested in the high ($5.25+/hr, usually off the books) paying job.
How many illegal aliens have better than an 8th grade education?
How many have the equivalent of a high school diploma/GED?
How many have had at least 1 year of college, much less a degree?
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? The education level/poverty level of individuals who live in another country are not the concern of the US. If the individuals want more education or less poverty, they need to fix the problem their own damn selves, because as has been painstakingly explained to us by the UN, we are not the f#!#ing police of the world.
For all the people who simply declare, "They need to come here legally!"
One question: if that was at all possible, don't you think they'd do so, rather than (in many cases) pay their life savings, and themselves into slavery, so that some coyote can smuggle them across -- or maybe just kill them and leave the bodies in the desert? Or are all illegals so stupid that if you offer them a choice between "get legal citizenship" or "likely be raped and killed, but maybe sneak across," they'd choose the latter out of pure spite?
For every 10,000 people who want to come across, work hard, and make a life for themselves and their families, there's like 1 opening. Yes, the border needs to be secured against drug gangs, etc. Yes, I'd very much like to make sure the people coming across were vaccinated, paid for their health care, etc. And yes, it would be a lot easier to do these things if there were some legal mechanism by which they might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting in, without a 30-year wait.
I would like to see a much more liberal immigration policy, but I fail to see how our current welfare state could cope with the load. Depending on how it's done most immigrants would become productive taxpayers IMO, but many will doubtless use the safety net at some point.
What then is the fix for the massive train wreck and human black market that our policies have created?
What can California and Arizona learn from Texas, for instance, in terms of dealing with the load the anchor babies put on the public education system or medicaid?
Texas seems to have handled things a lot better than California.
I don't think we should change the constitution, and I don't see a way to write this law that isn't a prima facia violation of the constitution.
I would be curious to compare the methods and success of other southern boarder states.
Why not just take the simple solution and annex Mexico before Mexico annexes you.
Off course that would give the USA it's very own internal terrorist problems in Yucatan..
We already have a number of internal terrorist problems.
We already have a number of internal terrorist problems.Why not just take the simple solution and annex Mexico before Mexico annexes you.
Off course that would give the USA it's very own internal terrorist problems in Yucatan..
Agreed. But looking at history, I always wondered why this never happened. From what I remember(and I could be horribly wrong) the second dustup between America and Mexico could have resulted in the US pushing farther and farther south, right? Or am I thinking of something else?
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? The education level/poverty level of individuals who live in another country are not the concern of the US. If the individuals want more education or less poverty, they need to fix the problem their own damn selves, because as has been painstakingly explained to us by the UN, we are not the f!%#ing police of the world.Incidentally, the average time it takes to "cross the borders and be a citizen properly" is I believe 8-10 years. And that's 100% due to US bureaucracy.
So yeah, not really an option.
Yeah, so if it isn't an option, why the hell are they breaking the law and doing it anyway?
Because they aren't interested in "citizenship". They are interested in the high ($5.25+/hr, usually off the books) paying job.
How many illegal aliens have better than an 8th grade education?
How many have the equivalent of a high school diploma/GED?
How many have had at least 1 year of college, much less a degree?
You're right, despite my wife and daughter slowly starving to death, I'll go into the not entirely hilariously corrupt politics and try to change things from the ground up instead of taking a chance to get them out of their poverty and into a better place to live. What was I thinking.
Oh, also, drug issues between the US and Mexico have zero things to do with illegal immigration and everything to do with the US's terrible, crime causing, absolutely abhorrant prison system.
Contributor
|
How many illegal aliens have better than an 8th grade education?
How many have the equivalent of a high school diploma/GED?
How many have had at least 1 year of college, much less a degree?
No one knows. They're undocumented. Purely anecdotal, but I know Mexican illegals with college and without. You'd be surprised, perhaps, by the number of PhDs driving cabs in NYC. Some of whom, I have every reason to believe, are highly illegal.
Am I saying all illegals are highly educated? Of course not. My anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Nor does anyone's. In the face of an utter lack of evidence, why are you generalizing your experience to assume every one here illegally is poorly educated?
Or am I off base, and you were genuinely asking a question?
|
Contributor
|
I do understand your frustration over the blood sucking illegals and will support MOST measures...these illegals are very crafty and will stop at nothing to get here and take any thing they can get from free health care to free welfare that they havn't paid into, to free education for their kids. They want it all and don't want to work for any of it.Really? You know all of them? You interviewed them? Or is being here illegally automatically proof that they are "blood sucking", will "stop at nothing to get here...", "take anything they can get", "and don't want to work for any of it..."
So ALL illegals are callous, dangerous, lazy thieves and generally vile human beings?
That's funny, because people I have known who are here illegally are a mixed bag -- kind of like most people everywhere. Some I'd rather not have met and wish ICE had had the resources to keep out of the country. Others are simply compassionate caring people, keen to contribute to their communities, determined to make a better life for their children -- to the point of taking insane risks few of us could claim the courage to face -- and willing to work very, very hard to get that.
Many illegals I have known would give their eye-teeth for the same chance to become American that my great grandfather had.
Then why don't they start the path to citizenship instead of comeing here, working 5yrs or 20yrs or however long and then retireing back in their"home" counrty.
I didn't make my point very clearly so allow me to clarify, I am frustrated by the attitude of the illegals just as much as by their presence here.
The mindset of the few I have had the displeasure of associating with is one of "you took our land" so that misconception gives them the right to be here and claim anything they want. The mexican american war happened over 100yrs ago (I don't feel like looking up the exact date right now) so any claim they had is null and void but they still hold onto that...
I will of course believe you when you tell me the people you've met had the attitude that they are entitled to reparations for the Mexican-American war. Weird. Non of the people I've met ever made any such claims. So we can swap anecdotes all night, I suppose. Many of the illegals I know would LOVE to start the path to citizenship. Except they can't. They are here illegally to begin with.
Why are the only options being put forth inane extremes?Because that is the kind of society we are living in right now.
yea as much s I hate to say it your right, my ideas are extreme but thats because i'm just angry over illegal immigration. I don't want to seperate families and it would be nice if we could allow everyone to live here but we can't, we as a nation simply do not have the resources to fund,feed,and naturalise every illegal that wants to be here.
Bush pushed for that. Dems AND Repubs rejected it.
Which again proves I'm neither; I actually supported him on that (and on the line-item veto as well).
I bet Hitler would know what to do?
1. A counter question - should every person who wants to enter the country and become a citizen be allowed to enter the country and become a citizen?
2. In regards to that 1 million number, consider this fact too; as of 2006 the United States naturalizes more legal immigrants every year then every other country on the planet combined. I don't think we can be said to be draconic in refusing entrance.
Wicht -- sincere thanks to you for an excellent and thought-provoking reply, containing solid points rather than rhetoric. So, first off, let me salute you for that.
With regards to item (2), I'm going to look it up. No offense intended to you personally, but my co-workers, when talking politics, invariably quote "statistics" like this all the time, that turn out to be completely make-believe ("Did you know that there are more repeat child molesters represented among Democratic senators right now than among the Catholic church worldwide and the entire continent of Asia throughout all of history COMBINED?"). I suspect yours might be a lot closer to the mark, though -- thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it out and post a link when I get a chance.
With regards to your 1st question, I have a counter-counter-question: should every person who wants to stay in the country and mooch off the system be allowed to stay, just because they were born here? I mean, if someone wants to come in and work hard, I'd very happily invite them in, and then deport a bunch of the worthless, lazy, overly-entitled snotty kids that hang around my office. Then we'd have a zero net immigration rate; we'd just be deporting the dead weight. Personally, I care a LOT less about where someone happened to be born, and a LOT more about how hard they're willing to work.
|
Contributor
|
1. Illegal immigrants do compete and take away from both hard working and lazy Americans. Which is precisely why immigration should be legal in much the way it was at the turn of the century.
Tell that to my family who have difficulty paying their bills while working their farms.
I would tell that to your family, too. I'm sorry that they have difficulty paying their bills while working their farms. I think its probably an error to blame the poorly paid state of farming in this country solely on illegal immigrants. More to the point, if big agriculture had to house its workers legally and pay them a legal wage, and pay proper employee taxes on them then smaller farms could compete better.
The economic growth potential of the U.S is not the same now as it was at the turn of the century. Our manufacturing was growing remarkably then and continued to explode for a time. That time is gone.As these jobs (manufacturing, construction, and farming) are already being worked (and the market is not exploding), there is not an imperative for the government to bring in more people to compete with the current population on a roughly even scale (legalization) as there was at the turn of the century...
I disagree about the economic growth potential of the U.S. It's certainly different from what it was at the turn of the century, but to take the view that our economic future is just stagnant and therefore immigrants are worthless to the country seems...misguided. Immigrants have long been a strength to our nation. Individual anecdotes aside, I don't believe that has changed.
I get the sense, and perhaps I'm wrong, that you want some sort of freeze in the competitive landscape. That you want a world in which who competes with you and how in farming (for example) never changes. Also I get the sense that, somehow, competition from a non-American is worse than competition from an American. I'm with you that unfair competition (ie drastically undercutting the wage that legally run businesses must pay) should be eliminated, but I don't understand how anyone can have a world where no one new competes with them. I'd like that too!
I do understand you mean you'd like for there to be no increase in competition because times are tough, but in a quasi-capitalist nation like ours, its a legally regulated market that determines such things as the volume of competition in an industry. What I mean is, if a bunch of legal immigrants want to work in farming and must be paid exactly like Americans currently working in farming, who are the American farms going to hire and why? Stands to reason, I think, that they'll hire the best farmers, which ultimately benefits all of us non-farmer Americans. If farming in the sense you mean is a commodity skill, then most likely the farmers will hire those with whom they communicate best; ie not immigrants.
Competition from illegally paid illegal immigrants - I get and agree why that's a serious problem.
What's the fear about competition from legally paid, legal immigrants?
Businesses are also committing a crime when they hire illegals, and those businesses should be held accountable. Why are such businesses permitted to break the law, illegally gain an unfair advantage against small and mom/pop businesses that helps drive those people out of business, and we blame the immigrant?
First, for a period of time under the Bush administration, ICE began to crack down on such businesses but received stiff criticism for doing so. Remember all those raids? How many have happened in the last year and a half? Both administrations (former and current) backed off due to seeking Hispanic votes.
The federal government has stopped doing its job.
Here we agree.
Second, both the business and the immigrant are guilty of crimes already. Working without a green card, failure to properly pay taxes (including social security, etc., unless a flase number was...
I agree that working illegally is bad.
Otherwise, I think we're talking somewhat at cross-purposes. I'm not saying that people here illegally aren't, well, here illegally. I think your point begs the question, which is precisely whether or not these people should be legal immigrants to begin with.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the meme seems to be floating about in this thread that we (the US) can't afford to have more people here. Someone else in the thread mentioned that we allow a million people to immigrate and that this demonstrated the liberality of our policy. A millions sounds like a big number, but not really.
The US population growth -- including immigration and emigration -- is .97%. Less than 1% per year.
The million immigrant number tossed about is .00322 of our total population (doing the math off the above link).
Even in our rough economic times, the Unites States' GDP growth rate is +3%, well above our population growth. This is a crude comparison, I know, and not quite apples and oranges, but I think it makes the basic point: signs indicate we can afford more people.
Our bad but recovering immediate economic situation aside, if history is any guide, if our constitution is any guide, and if our traditions as Americans are any guide then we as a nation benefit from legal immigration in the long run.
Should we tear down the Statue of Liberty while we're at this? I mean, really?
To the actual issue, the law, I don't believe it will work as others have said, I imagine it won't get out of the state congress.
To the more general idea of being born in the US being enough for "natural born citizenship", well it was good enough for Bruce Lee, so I say it is good enough.
Now what I think is more reasonable, is that as long as the child is a dependent of the parents, the child can not fully benefit from their natural born status. In that case, they will be considered citizens of their guardians' nation until such time as they are capable of fully claiming their citizenship rights.
In any case, a parent in the country illegally should not be able to benefit from the illegal activity (something about the fruit of the poisonous/tainted tree). Thus even if an adult child is a legal resident, if they were born in the country and their parents were illegally present at the time, then the adult child can not be a considered a factor if the parents later try to apply for legal immigration.
Didn't this whole hubbub start over people who "looked like they were illegal" having to be searched by the cops or something?
LOL, I love when people make up ridiculous ideas and then use those ridiculous ideas as support for other ridiculous ideas.
|
|
Didn't this whole hubbub start over people who "looked like they were illegal" having to be searched by the cops or something?LOL, I love when people make up ridiculous ideas and then use those ridiculous ideas as support for other ridiculous ideas.
Then you watch foxnews and make fun of it too ? :)
Then you watch foxnews and make fun of it too ? :)Didn't this whole hubbub start over people who "looked like they were illegal" having to be searched by the cops or something?LOL, I love when people make up ridiculous ideas and then use those ridiculous ideas as support for other ridiculous ideas.
On occasion, yup.
|
|
With regards to your 1st question, I have a counter-counter-question: should every person who wants to stay in the country and mooch off the system be allowed to stay, just because they were born here? I mean, if someone wants to come in and work hard, I'd very happily invite them in, and then deport a bunch of the worthless, lazy, overly-entitled snotty kids that hang around my office. Then we'd have a zero net immigration rate; we'd just be deporting the dead weight. Personally, I care a LOT less about where someone happened to be born, and a LOT more about how hard they're willing to work.
If you are a citizen, then you are a citizen. I accept the 14th amendment for what it is. I also think its a bad road to start down, trying to decide who "deserves" to remain a citizen once they are a citizen. Short of them committing treason or abandoning the country by vocally renouncing their membership, people should remain Americans once they are declared Americans. I'm willing to accept that there are people I dislike and don't approve of who share a national identity with me. I think the solution therefore not to be kicking people out but changing the entitlement system so that it is neither easy nor socially acceptable to be a slacker.
Meanwhile... Wikipedia Article (I confess I followed that link int he footnote on combined immigration and did not see the fact stated as such.)
EDIT: Incidentally, to answer my own question above I think legal immigration numbers could stand to be multiplied by a factor of two or maybe even 3. But I don't think thats going to happen until unemployment goes back down.
|
|
With regards to your 1st question, I have a counter-counter-question: should every person who wants to stay in the country and mooch off the system be allowed to stay, just because they were born here? I mean, if someone wants to come in and work hard, I'd very happily invite them in, and then deport a bunch of the worthless, lazy, overly-entitled snotty kids that hang around my office. Then we'd have a zero net immigration rate; we'd just be deporting the dead weight. Personally, I care a LOT less about where someone happened to be born, and a LOT more about how hard they're willing to work.If you are a citizen, then you are a citizen. I accept the 14th amendment for what it is. I also think its a bad road to start down, trying to decide who "deserves" to remain a citizen once they are a citizen. Short of them committing treason or abandoning the country by vocally renouncing their membership, people should remain Americans once they are declared Americans. I'm willing to accept that there are people I dislike and don't approve of who share a national identity with me. I think the solution therefore not to be kicking people out but changing the entitlement system so that it is neither easy nor socially acceptable to be a slacker.
Meanwhile... Wikipedia Article (I confess I followed that link int he footnote on combined immigration and did not see the fact stated as such.)
EDIT: Incidentally, to answer my own question above I think legal immigration numbers could stand to be multiplied by a factor of two or maybe even 3. But I don't think thats going to happen until unemployment goes back down.
Making you all perform 12 hours of labour in State Tax per week on top of the income tax you pay on your regular income to the Federal Government will separate the useful from the dead weight.
|
|
On occasion, yup.Then you watch foxnews and make fun of it too ? :)Didn't this whole hubbub start over people who "looked like they were illegal" having to be searched by the cops or something?LOL, I love when people make up ridiculous ideas and then use those ridiculous ideas as support for other ridiculous ideas.
Of course I do the same thing to MSNBC at times.
In regards to the original article, there are no other supporters of the bill in question that are quoted by the author.
That means one of two things:
The author/editor purposefully did not put those other quotes in, or . . .
This is a crackpot bill written by a crackpot state senator, with no support beyond his own muddled brain.
The picture of Governor Brewer that is at the top of the article does not link her in any way to the bill in question, which means Time.com is using "guilt by association" in order to fan the flames.
While I have certain opinions about the Arizona law, this particular article is poorly written, and in normal circumstances the bill would die in committee. But no, the editors at Time.com decided to put out a shoddy article that has no relevance to the issue at hand.
|
|
Agreed. But looking at history, I always wondered why this never happened. From what I remember(and I could be horribly wrong) the second dustup between America and Mexico could have resulted in the US pushing farther and farther south, right? Or am I thinking of something else?We already have a number of internal terrorist problems.Why not just take the simple solution and annex Mexico before Mexico annexes you.
Off course that would give the USA it's very own internal terrorist problems in Yucatan..
We did take large parts of Mexico though, but only the parts we wanted. We ended with Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, parts of Utah, and a few other tidbits. By the end of the 19th century we were more interested in global affairs (seizing other's colonies rather than make our own, such as the results of the Spanish-American war) and merchantilism than in territorial acquisition in Mexico. Further talk of annexing Mexico mostly ended as a result. There's more talk today of annexing Canada.
Agreed. But looking at history, I always wondered why this never happened. From what I remember(and I could be horribly wrong) the second dustup between America and Mexico could have resulted in the US pushing farther and farther south, right? Or am I thinking of something else?We already have a number of internal terrorist problems.Why not just take the simple solution and annex Mexico before Mexico annexes you.
Off course that would give the USA it's very own internal terrorist problems in Yucatan..
We did take large parts of Mexico though, but only the parts we wanted. We ended with Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, parts of Utah, and a few other tidbits. By the end of the 19th century we were more interested in global affairs (seizing other's colonies rather than make our own, such as the results of the Spanish-American war) and merchantilism than in territorial acquisition in Mexico. Further talk of annexing Mexico mostly ended as a result. There's more talk today of annexing Canada.
Ok I have no problem with anexxing canada. They speak english,for the most part, they have an excellent education system and to top it all off their nice.
|
|
Something about Folks who dont live on the border with Mexico not understanding the Refugee problem.
Europe has a huge Refugee Crisis. The Poor are pouring out of Africa looking for a Better life in Europe. Some frequently try the Channel Tunnel into Britain.
Britain is close to voting in a Nationalist Government, A Refugee surge would push them over the edge.|
|
Ok I have no problem with anexxing canada. They speak english,for the most part, they have an excellent education system and to top it all off their nice.Agreed. But looking at history, I always wondered why this never happened. From what I remember(and I could be horribly wrong) the second dustup between America and Mexico could have resulted in the US pushing farther and farther south, right? Or am I thinking of something else?We already have a number of internal terrorist problems.Why not just take the simple solution and annex Mexico before Mexico annexes you.
Off course that would give the USA it's very own internal terrorist problems in Yucatan..
We did take large parts of Mexico though, but only the parts we wanted. We ended with Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, parts of Utah, and a few other tidbits. By the end of the 19th century we were more interested in global affairs (seizing other's colonies rather than make our own, such as the results of the Spanish-American war) and merchantilism than in territorial acquisition in Mexico. Further talk of annexing Mexico mostly ended as a result. There's more talk today of annexing Canada.
Annex Canada and Australia will need to respond in Kind. We will dump a Million breeding Pairs of Big Red Kangaroos in South America. The Subsequent Economic Crisis will push a million Half Starved South Americans to migrate north into Mexico tripling the Tide crossing the Border.
there's always tazmania.
there's always tazmania.We are saving that for our Concentration Camp...Apparently the USA is looking at deporting its Poor, Homeless and Unemployed.
I don't want to lose my home, but it would certainly beat the prices for the plane ticket. Hmmm... and to hang out with the Tazmanian Devil? Ok!
