Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many do not want an honest discussion on much of anything really.
Illegal immigration is dangerous. We need to secure the borders.
"You are descended from immigrants and are therefore a hypocrite"
The entitlement programs are out of control and need to be overhauled.
"You hate poor people and would rather see them die of starvation than help them."
If you engage in an activity which is likely to produce a new life; that new life shouldn't be the one who is punished for it, especially when the penalty assigned to him/her is death.
"You are against women's rights"
The ACA has NOT reduced the number of the uninsured and has led to an increase in my cost, which is the opposite of what was told to "we the people".
"You hate poor people and would rather see them die because they can't go to the doctor"
Black on black violence should be the first and primary focus of BLM.
"You are racist and are guilty of white privilege"
Yep, just more examples of the lunacy of liberals and ethnocentrics.
His mother's family came to the US from Scotland for economic benefit.
Given the harsh economic realities of life in such isolated communities of subsistence farming and fishing, it is little wonder that numerous Lewismen (and women) emigrated as the land simply could not sustain the growing population. Clearly there was a better life for them in the new world.
His mother's family came to the US from Scotland for economic benefit.
Given the harsh economic realities of life in such isolated communities of subsistence farming and fishing, it is little wonder that numerous Lewismen (and women) emigrated as the land simply could not sustain the growing population. Clearly there was a better life for them in the new world.
How did this thread get so long?
Did they sneak across the border, have every government document printed in their home language and interpreters hired just in case, pop out massive amounts of anchors and abuse the system and shut down hospitals? No! Thread Fail!
For those spouting the nonsense that just because back in the 1800's and other early immigration into our country it was easier to migrate here one cannot compare it to today. Our population has grown a lot since then. We lack the jobs and resources for immigrants today to make it as easy today as it was long ago. We were a wide open frontier back then, sparely populated with plenty of everything for everyone. We were into nation building back then. That's not so today. We are already built and don't need high numbers of immigration today and certainly not illegal immigration. Most illegals coming here today are not starving nor are they living in dangerous situations. If that were so then why aren't they applying as refugees to come here? I don't know why some can't grasp these simple concepts. So what do they do instead? Pull the race card!
Well the race card doesn't work because Mexicans and other Latinos enjoy the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country today.
His mother's family came to the US from Scotland for economic benefit.
Given the harsh economic realities of life in such isolated communities of subsistence farming and fishing, it is little wonder that numerous Lewismen (and women) emigrated as the land simply could not sustain the growing population. Clearly there was a better life for them in the new world.
If liberal media is trying to use this to get your support they really are calling you a useful idiot. By the way, my grandparents were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
I always find this "all of our ancestors came legally" argument interesting.
There was a time when thousands of people poured off of ships on a daily basis. They didn't all come through Ellis Island and they weren't all documented.
Many paid for passage just like people pay "coyotes" today and they disappeared into the tenements and ethnic ghettos just like is done now.
This ideal of 100% lawful immigration never existed in this or any other country.
And this has what to do with the immigration laws in place today? Two supposed wrongs make a right in your book?
I have more education than Scott Walker and then some.
Gee, why don't you use it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
I made a casual point of how recent Trump's family is to this country, not unlike Cruz, Rubio, etc. I have no dog in the immigration fight, my family has been in this country hundreds of years. There was a time when it was very easy to immigrate to this country, you just showed up.
No one "just showed up." They still had to file for citizenship, etc. There are procedures, and laws, and they were followed, unlike today's invaders.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
The rhetoric Trump uses, calling Mexicans rapists, etc. in broad strokes appeals to a certain crowd and clearly that crowd.
And what "crowd" would that be? Republicans, I suppose? "Right-wing conservatives?" You might as well have come right out and said it, because everyone knows that's what you meant.
The fact of the matter is that Trump is right. A very large percentage of those invaders are unsavory characters, criminals, like rapists etc., exactly as Trump has boldly stated. They aren't all Mexicans of course, but a very large majority of them are. You are willfully turning a blind eye to the facts, because you are a Liberal, and Liberals think they are above stating such facts. They are unwilling to admit what is going on, because they think it is unfair appears to be "racist."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Apparently one can't make a mild observation because the level of hate has been revved to a hundred now.
See? Just what I said above.
It has nothing to do with "hate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
I wondered if this level of anger had any precedent and it does.
"The influx of newcomers resulted in anti-immigrant sentiment among certain factions of America’s native-born, predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant population. The new arrivals were often seen as unwanted competition for jobs, while many Catholics–especially the Irish–experienced discrimination for their religious beliefs. In the 1850s, the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American Party (also called the Know-Nothings) tried to severely curb immigration..."
<sigh> It just never stops, does it? Whites are all racist pigs. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
And some are just gardeners or pick crops. With all due respect, some Americans can be dangerous too. I just think the level of anger is a bit much.
That is the narrative that Democrats want us to believe, but of the many thousands of invaders (and that's what they are) that are entering this country illegally on a daily basis, how many of them are coming in to be "gardeners" and "pick crops?" I don't think there is any shortage of "crop pickers," and many crops are picked by machines these days. Besides, with the drought in California, there are fewer crops to pick.
His mother's family came to the US from Scotland for economic benefit.
Given the harsh economic realities of life in such isolated communities of subsistence farming and fishing, it is little wonder that numerous Lewismen (and women) emigrated as the land simply could not sustain the growing population. Clearly there was a better life for them in the new world.
Not sure if you have actually read all the posts but if 30% of 11 million are from other countries besides Mexico and South America and 40% are overstaying visas and the total is 11 million not including children, you have a much larger problem and focusing on hispanics specifically. 30% is not statistically insignificant. If a European overstays their visa and is here illegally, are you okay with that? Or is this really just about hispanics?
No, I have not picked apart the statistics thrown out by all the participants in the debate because most statistics in this area cannot be substantiated in any detail on either side. They are estimates and supposition and as such are useful only as general guideposts.
Using your numbers.......11 million ILLEGAL immigrants. Not 11 million immigrants, right?
30% from the world other than latin america. no mention of their port of entry though. a significant number of these likely did travel through Mexico and have thus been grouped into the Mexican Immigrant discussion in a general sense. I am not sure how the 40% overstaying visas affects the numbers. Does this reduce the percentage of non hispanics in the ILLEGAL population or is it irrelevant?
In any case, this leaves 70% of the illegal problem as being Mexican and Latin American in ethnicity by your numbers layout description.
Just as an aside, I saw something on one of the federal immigration web sites breaking down the immigration country of origins. I cannot recall the exact site or I would cite it. On that site it stated that the breakout of origins as being 92% of immigration to the US as coming through the Mexico border station, 6% through the Canadian border and the rest was broken out by country and did not specify the entry point so I suspect that is direct immigration at international airports or water ports of entry. Note this is LEGAL immigration and would include that 40% of visitors overstaying visas, but would not include those crossing the Canadian and Mexican borders surreptitiously. That would indicate that your 70% numbers would mean that Mexican and Latin American visitors overstaying their visa would be much lower than the 40% rate or else the 70% would be much higher. That speaks to the morality and law abiding nature of the LEGAL immigrants from the south compared to those from other countries, and indirectly supports that the ILLEGALS from the south are a MUCH greater portion of immigration than the LEGAL immigrants.
Do you want to focus your energy on the minority of the problem or the majority? 70% is significantly above the 50% midpoint. Should we start working on fixing the 3.3 million lawbreakers or the 7.7 million lawbreakers? Does it really matter which we talk about if the same solution applies to both? Because we use the biggest portion of the problem to illustrate the extent, does that really mean we are going to go out of the way to exempt those we did not specifically mention?
IF we decide to enforce existing law and deport any one we find breaking immigration law, do you really think there is an exception in the existing law for Europeans vs Asians vs Latin Americans? No, there is not, so anyone found overstaying their visa would be deported regardless of their country of origin whether we devote equal time to listing every possible ethnicity or country of origin possible in our debate rhetoric or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It just never stops, does it? Whites are all racist pigs. Right? 