U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2011, 05:27 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,168,220 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Do you really think welfare is a jackpot? Kush life I bet it is. looool.
It is for those with hardly any education and skills. A life in the U.S. with an anchor or two or three or four provides a pretty good life to someone coming from a third world country compared to our standard of living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2011, 05:30 PM
 
951 posts, read 617,593 times
Reputation: 89
Their baby can and the mom can get WIC. That's hardly a family sucking on the teet of America. I mean the baby is a U.S. citizen, not how do you put it an ILLEGAL!!!! Even if it all doesn't go to the kid, you think they have a huge amount left over to spend after the kid's essentials are purchased?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 06:21 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,168,220 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Their baby can and the mom can get WIC. That's hardly a family sucking on the teet of America. I mean the baby is a U.S. citizen, not how do you put it an ILLEGAL!!!! Even if it all doesn't go to the kid, you think they have a huge amount left over to spend after the kid's essentials are purchased?
The person I was replying to asked why are illegals still coming here if there is nothing here for them. I replied that the greedy employers will hire them over Americans and the other incentive was birthright citizenship for their anchors and the ensuing welfare they are entitled to by giving birth on our soil. In otherwords their children would be supported with or without any other income. A third world "immigrant" would think this is a "cushy" life even though it wouldn't be by American standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 06:06 PM
 
5,789 posts, read 3,112,111 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie47 View Post
You have a pretty strange definition of "quickest."
If they're not illegally here we don't have to track them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 06:08 PM
 
5,789 posts, read 3,112,111 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie47 View Post
Well, when we offered a path to immigration that was as open and easy as Ellis Island, etc., it lead to quite a boom in economic prosperity that helped to create the rich and varied country we enjoy today.
That really didn't answer my question. Why do you think we are obligated to make immigration easy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 06:17 PM
 
5,789 posts, read 3,112,111 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie47 View Post
Well, when we offered a path to immigration that was as open and easy as Ellis Island, etc., it lead to quite a boom in economic prosperity that helped to create the rich and varied country we enjoy today.
Ellis Island's nickname was the Island of Tears for those not admitted.

The two main reasons for entry denial were the diagnosis of a contagious disease or the fear that the immigrant could not support themselves or might be an illegal laborer.

Auntie Z should have been sent packing as I don't believe she's ever supported herself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 11:45 PM
 
Location: East Coast US
37 posts, read 23,010 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Let's see millions of Americans are out of work, our schools, jails and hospitals are being stressed out and overcrowded. Our popualation has grown to over 310 million now. You need more?

They keep coming because the greedy employers keep hiring them instead of Americans and if they can produce an anchor on our soil then they have hit the welfare jackpot.
They keep coming because the opportunities here are greater than the opportunities there. Wherever "there" may be.

What, exactly, is the right number of people?

Just FYI, if the entirety of the United States were as densely populated as New Jersey, the US could accommodate 3.5 BILLION people. Or, if Jersey is too crowded for your tastes, if the US were populated as densely as the whole of Pennsylvania the US could nearly triple the current population. (Source: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...ny-more-people ) So, no, we're not anywhere near overcrowded.

The problems you mention - jobs, jails, hospitals, etc - are not resource problems, they're allocation problems. And hospitals aren't overcrowded. Hospitals are generally always as near capacity as they can get, regardless of the health of the local population. (See:Supply Sensitive Care - http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downlo..._sensitive.pdf )

And as for jails, well, that one is easy to fix. Stop fighting an armed war on drugs and focus on the public health issue that it truly is, and prisons quickly become empty. There are just under 2.5 million people imprisoned in the US. In the seventies that number was under 400,000. That increase is almost entirely due to the war on drugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird View Post
That really didn't answer my question. Why do you think we are obligated to make immigration easy?
If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of the United States, you might take such a position.

It doesn't say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men, provided they natural-born citizens of the United States, are created equal, et. cetera..."

It also has a bit in there about how tyrannical it was for the King to inhibit immigration. Specifically, that George was "refusing to pass [laws] to encourage [] migration hither."

More generally, however, I believe the position is that there is no logical reason why one group of people should be treated differently than another, merely because of the geographical location of their birth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:23 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,168,220 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickDros View Post
They keep coming because the opportunities here are greater than the opportunities there. Wherever "there" may be.

What, exactly, is the right number of people?

Just FYI, if the entirety of the United States were as densely populated as New Jersey, the US could accommodate 3.5 BILLION people. Or, if Jersey is too crowded for your tastes, if the US were populated as densely as the whole of Pennsylvania the US could nearly triple the current population. (Source: America Could Contain Many, Many, Many More People | ThinkProgress ) So, no, we're not anywhere near overcrowded.

The problems you mention - jobs, jails, hospitals, etc - are not resource problems, they're allocation problems. And hospitals aren't overcrowded. Hospitals are generally always as near capacity as they can get, regardless of the health of the local population. (See:Supply Sensitive Care - http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downlo..._sensitive.pdf )

And as for jails, well, that one is easy to fix. Stop fighting an armed war on drugs and focus on the public health issue that it truly is, and prisons quickly become empty. There are just under 2.5 million people imprisoned in the US. In the seventies that number was under 400,000. That increase is almost entirely due to the war on drugs.



If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of the United States, you might take such a position.

It doesn't say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men, provided they natural-born citizens of the United States, are created equal, et. cetera..."

It also has a bit in there about how tyrannical it was for the King to inhibit immigration. Specifically, that George was "refusing to pass [laws] to encourage [] migration hither."

More generally, however, I believe the position is that there is no logical reason why one group of people should be treated differently than another, merely because of the geographical location of their birth.
The right number of people has already been determined by our government. Right now we allow in 1 million legal immigrants per year. You know better than a panel of experts that study this issue?

You need to learn what the carrying capacity of a nation is vs just cramming in all who want to come here. Try this link. susps.org Not the mention that we are in a huge recession right now with high unemployment and dwindling resources and taxes.

When our founding fathers used the word "people" they were referring to citizens, not illegal aliens. Foreigners whether they be legal or illegal do get basic human rights but their rights are otherwise limited and they nowhere come close to what citizens are afforded nor should they be.

What group is being treated differently than another in this country other than the fact that lawbreakers are being held accountable for their crimes? Deporting illegals aliens is akin to putting citizens in jail for committing crimes in this country. If anything, many illegals are getting a pass on deportations but citizens don't get a pass on their crimes. Gee, maybe you are right afterall. Citizens are being treated differently than illegals when it comes to lawbreaking, not the other way around.

I see, so since 100- 200 years ago we were a wide open frontier with sparse population and still into nation building and needed many new immigrants we should have the same policies today even though none of those things are true today and we have over 310 million people here already all vying for scarce jobs and resources?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,917,032 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by sackaroni View Post
Ending the war on drugs with an open boarder would remove money from the warlords running Mexico, making it more enticing for farmers and doctors to stay in their home country. All that $$ savings would give us enough to fully screen / background check every legal immigrant thoroughly before granting their visa allowing us to be safer from terrorists and know who is in our country. It's a win win win deal.
Except that you fail to address the fact that your idea also would reward the criminals who entered illegally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:26 PM
 
19 posts, read 12,907 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Except that you fail to address the fact that your idea also would reward the criminals who entered illegally.
They need to get back to the border, get screened, and pick up their visa like everybody else. After giving them an easy way to immigrate legally, and some time to comply, then I'd have very little sympathy for anybody here illegally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top