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.
Outsourcing makes good sense. If you aren't going to provide jobs for the American people then your business is of no benefit to this country.
There are many reasons bringing in truckloads and boxcars of illegals is bad. It harms the sending countries and in many cases this is Mexico. It would benefit us more to have Mexico be more prosperous and stable. It would be far better to keep people where their families and society is. Far more stable.
Relocating millions of people for the purpose of getting cheap labor from them without considering the impact to their villages is simply greed.
But also you need to consider the impact of bringing millions of uneducated, unassimilated, uninsured, impoverished people to the USA where unemployment is already sky high and the government is in serious deep debt. The employers aren't bringing them in to provide health insurance plans and even legal wages to them.
Outsourcing like what was done with NAFTA has had devastating effects and has led to a massive influx of millions of people into the USA. Smart outsourcing would create needed jobs for people in their own communities, in their own country but also would not create sky high unemployment in the USA.
Excellent points! However, many ethnocentric pro-illegals don't care about any of the above because they have an ulterior motive and that is to fill up this country with their own ethnic kind. The others only care about increasing their profits here in this country and nothing else.
Outsourcing makes good sense. If you aren't going to provide jobs for the American people then your business is of no benefit to this country.
There are many reasons bringing in truckloads and boxcars of illegals is bad. It harms the sending countries and in many cases this is Mexico. It would benefit us more to have Mexico be more prosperous and stable. It would be far better to keep people where their families and society is. Far more stable.
Relocating millions of people for the purpose of getting cheap labor from them without considering the impact to their villages is simply greed.
But also you need to consider the impact of bringing millions of uneducated, unassimilated, uninsured, impoverished people to the USA where unemployment is already sky high and the government is in serious deep debt. The employers aren't bringing them in to provide health insurance plans and even legal wages to them.
Outsourcing like what was done with NAFTA has had devastating effects and has led to a massive influx of millions of people into the USA. Smart outsourcing would create needed jobs for people in their own communities, in their own country but also would not create sky high unemployment in the USA.
Concern for others outside of America is actually a very sane answer to the illegals vs outsource question. If you look at the global economy and don't care about American protectionism, then sending capital out of our country completely can be a big positive for outside countries.
However, many ethnocentric pro-illegals don't care about any of the above because they have an ulterior motive and that is to fill up this country with their own ethnic kind.
However, many ethnocentric anti-immigrationists don't care about any of the above because they have an ulterior motive and that is to keep this country full with their own ethnic kind.
For someone who claimed on another board to be part Hispanic, you sure seem obsessed with defending us from accepting outside ethnicities.
Concern for others outside of America is actually a very sane answer to the illegals vs outsource question. If you look at the global economy and don't care about American protectionism, then sending capital out of our country completely can be a big positive for outside countries.
Remittance money is nothing but a quick fix for those societies that fail to address their own underlying cultural problems.
Sure - people in third world regions have children they can never afford, they cannot manage to stay in schools even though they have schools.
Quick fix - make it over the border, send money back.
The problem with that is like a lot of quick fixes and bandaid solutions, it does not address the real problems. Why are these people dropping out of school in the first place? Why are they having children at very young ages and having baby after baby when even in their own country there is a growing middle class of people taking advantage of their educational opportunities and delaying the start of their families. Yes Mexico has a growing middle class and is among the 14 wealthiest nations.
Having the parents abandon their children is not helping, and yes they abandon their children. Some to relatives which is better than the streets but never are these relatives a good substitue for the child's own parents. Having all the working age of these communities leave them is not building infrastructure, does not create jobs, does not promote stability.
As remittance money leads to inflation in the sending communities, those who don't have the monthly wire are actually ending up worse off. Prices and costs rise, but only those getting the remittance can afford the new prices and costs.
Job creation would do a whole lot more.
Parents could remain with their children, their own economies would grow. At least if all you can do is hire only people of some foreign country, then take your business to that country and hire them there.
I dont promote dangerous crossings. Id rather have a cohesive, sane immigration policy whereby people dont feel the need to make these dangerous treks.
And what exactly would that be? Opening the flood gates? We already allow the inrush of immigrants, and way too many per year as it is. If anything, the number that we let in each year should be lowered.
We are our own country, and have plenty of economic issues to deal with. I have no issue with letting a limited number of people come in each year to become citizens but there is absolutley no reason to increase that number. These people need to work to make their own countries better.
They take to the streets here in protest of our laws. Why the hell not take to the streets in your own country. Start a revolution and obtain freedoms and a better life where you come from? We've had our own battles throughout this nations history to make things better. It's time these ILLEGALS and soon to be illegals learn from our history and take a stand in their home countries.
Their are consequences to opening the flood gates and allowing more and more people in the US each year. A little common sense will tell you that.
However, many ethnocentric anti-immigrationists don't care about any of the above because they have an ulterior motive and that is to keep this country full with their own ethnic kind.
For someone who claimed on another board to be part Hispanic, you sure seem obsessed with defending us from accepting outside ethnicities.
Banned: there aint nothing wrong with keepin the USA the same. Like learn English and OBEY our rules. Mexico is the same but they want there people to use Spanish.
Banned: there aint nothing wrong with keepin the USA the same. Like learn English and OBEY our rules. Mexico is the same but they want there people to use Spanish.
Interesting isn't it, that their definition of ethnocentricism is for a country not to want their demographics changed via ILLEGAL IMMIGRATON. I guess they don't own a dictionary. They are truly the ethnocentric ones by wanting our country invaded by mostly one ethnic group (theirs usually) and to have our culture, language and demographics altered in this manner. It isn't only ethnocentric but racist to boot on their part. There is nothing natural about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. I have no problem with LEGAL immigration in reasonable numbers and from diverse groups. Now someone please explain to me how that is being ethnocentric.
By the way, I couldn't help read the remarks by this person on my ignore list and I have NEVER claimed to be Hispanic on any other forum because I don't have on ounce of Hispanic background anywhere.
Interesting isn't it, that their definition of ethnocentricism is for a country not to want their demographics changed via ILLEGAL IMMIGRATON. I guess they don't own a dictionary. They are truly the ethnocentric ones by wanting our country invaded by mostly one ethnic group (theirs usually) and to have our culture, language and demographics altered in this manner. It isn't only ethnocentric but racist to boot on their part. There is nothing natural about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. I have no problem with LEGAL immigration in reasonable numbers and from diverse groups. Now someone please explain to me how that is being ethnocentric.
By the way, I couldn't help read the remarks by this person on my ignore list and I have NEVER claimed to be Hispanic on any other forum because I don't have on ounce of Hispanic background anywhere.
Just read some of your own posts where you can't stand employers catering to spanish speaking clients, obsess over the racial demographics of cities that other people enjoy photographing, bully people to post about their personal heritage because you can't defend the actual points, and are overly concerned with immigration from one country because they "damage your culture". Then you call other people ethnocentric. : smack:
Sorry, but people advocating for open borders don't care where they'd be coming from. That's the OPEN part of it. I'm not trying to social engineer the optimal demographic percentages to your preference. You can keep pretending that people want fair treatment of other people only because of a concern for a shared race, but that's probably just projecting.
Just read some of your own posts where you can't stand employers catering to spanish speaking clients, obsess over the racial demographics of cities that other people enjoy photographing, bully people to post about their personal heritage because you can't defend the actual points, and are overly concerned with immigration from one country because they "damage your culture". Then you call other people ethnocentric. : smack:
Sorry, but people advocating for open borders don't care where they'd be coming from. That's the OPEN part of it. I'm not trying to social engineer the optimal demographic percentages to your preference. You can keep pretending that people want fair treatment of other people only because of a concern for a shared race, but that's probably just projecting.
What's wrong with being America-ethno-centric?
Just like Mexico, we have a language and culture - and a people. Our people speak English, are culturally American.
Almost no country is just one ethnic group or even race including the hispanic countries but they obviously can claim to have a language and culture. So can we.
...One person did say that our heritage was white Protestant.
Under chicagonut's definition, any portion of indigenous or African-American blood would make a White "mixed race". Factors of religion (or lack thereof) are not defining either. On July 4th, what is a universal, nationwide "American culture"?
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.
