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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2011, 03:33 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,127 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I would support it as long as it also included proof of financial security. For example 20G in a bank acct for more than 6 months. Or if they had a profession or education that was in demand here . Nurse or Doctor for example.
No money? No education? No profession that we need?
We dont need you.
Let me explain why. We kep hearing how if an immigrant is sponsored via fiancee or spousal VISA how easy it is for them. Well I had to provide financial proof that I could afford to sponsor. Immigrants should be held to the same standard as a citizen.
If you eliminated welfare, there's no "we" needing "you." If I want to hire someone, I should be able to. If we can assure they will be net contributors, what's the issue?

 
Old 09-16-2011, 03:54 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Not right now, no. You may not be aware of this but we have a lousy economy. We have no jobs for own citizens. Why should open the doors for people who are likely to take jobs Americans need? Why should any American want a neighbor who not only doesn't speak his language but ridiculously whines of bias and bigotry when we ask him to do so?

You're directly asking to me personally to support policies that are extremely contrary to my interests. Doesn't that strike you as nonsensical? Or is self interest, to paraphrase Orwell, only reserved for some animals and not others?

Other than your misguided belief that our immigration laws are somehow racist (which they aren't) you have yet to make a convincing argument to the contrary.
I wonder how many times that it has to be repeated to them that we have quotas for legal immigration for good reasons and legalizing these illegals would upset those quotas? How many times does it have to be repeated that we lack the jobs and resources for these people? How many times does it have to be repeated that it wouldn't be fair to potential immigrants waiting in their home countries to come the right way and within our annual quotas? How many times does it have to be repeated that it would be mostly Latinos that would benefit from another amnesty? How is that diversity?

We may not have an official language but English is our de facto national language and we do have our own culture which is a basic one with different flavors added to the melting pot? It ticks me off when someone makes the statement that this country has no language, culture or identity of its own. They can remain in denial all they want but it doesn't change a thing.
 
Old 09-16-2011, 04:50 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,385,436 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
I wonder how many times that it has to be repeated to them that we have quotas for legal immigration for good reasons and legalizing these illegals would upset those quotas? How many times does it have to be repeated that we lack the jobs and resources for these people? How many times does it have to be repeated that it wouldn't be fair to potential immigrants waiting in their home countries to come the right way and within our annual quotas? How many times does it have to be repeated that it would be mostly Latinos that would benefit from another amnesty? How is that diversity?

We may not have an official language but English is our de facto national language and we do have our own culture which is a basic one with different flavors added to the melting pot? It ticks me off when someone makes the statement that this country has no language, culture or identity of its own. They can remain in denial all they want but it doesn't change a thing.
I agree with most of your points, particularly the one about language. No American should be at a disadvantage because of lazy monolingual illegals. But I'm not sure if we have a particular culture.

I would still like to know if Rhymetime really believes that Americans should be taxed to pay for foreign nationals who want to live here but could not afford it without American subsidy. How are Americans who would be forced to work harder to support the economic needs of others free or equal? Isn't their desire to demand others support them the very definition of greed?

But there's the illegal lobby for you. They and their arrogant supporters believe themselves literally entitled to anything they want. Under their rules I suppose I should get myself declared an illegal Manhattanite. This way I can demand they give me money so I can buy myself a Manhattan apartment even if I can't afford one.
 
Old 09-16-2011, 07:25 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 875,884 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
How you can be permanent if you can be legally asked to leave at any moment? Immigrant implies legal permission. Illegals, by definition, do not have that permission. At best they're temporary residents.
All people who travel from outside of a country to adopt residence inside a country have immigrated. People who immigrate are immigrants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Go make those arguments in the immigration forum then. This is the forum dedicated to discussing illegal immigration. Your implication and that of many people who unfortunately agree with you on this issue is that anyone dares make any argument at all against illegal immigration is simply a racist.
It has now been repeated ad nauseum that there are affinities between white supremacists and non-supremacists that promote ethnic conspiracy theories (with the phrase "simply a racist" or "a mere racist" never once used despite your undeterred repetition of those phrases). There has been no claim that imputes a "racist" or white supremacist nature to all anti-immigration or anti-illegal immigration statements, claims, or arguments. On the contrary, Zeskind's analysis even lent credence to the fact that proponents of this ethnic conspiracy theory have not necessarily specified illegal immigration because, "differences between legal and illegal immigrants faded into a generalized belief that a brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking tidal wave was swamping the white-skinned population of the United States."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
The fellow traveler argument is one that I could easily make about pro-illegals since they share the same aims as racist organizations like La Raza.
This is a repetition of an assertion that has been responded to, namely the claim, "[the National Council of] La Raza is a racist organization."

The counterclaim is that the NCLR cannot promote a "racist" ideology in pan-Latinio ethnic advocacy, since Latinos are not a "race" and are in fact composed of multiple "racial" groups. By contrast, the white supremacists on the Internet forum Stormfront promote an ideology that whites are "non-Jews of wholly European descent" and are genetically endowed with intellectual superiority over other races. There is thus no equivalence in ideology.

There is also no equivalence in the function of the respective ethnic advocacy movements of this Latino rights organization and white supremacist movements, since the function of the former is organized resistance to institutional ethnic discrimination and the function of the latter is the preservation of institutional discrimination, ethnic hierarchies, and the residual distributive injustice created by historic European colonialism.

There can perhaps be discussion of whether organization under the umbrella of the Latino ethnocultural category is productive as opposed to "racial" organizations intended to resist discrimination against people of African and Amerindian descent, but that isn't directly relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Those are the implications of your words.
Do you have an argument or evidence that provides logical support for this assertion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
That accusation has certainly been repeated ad nauseum by illegal advocates here.
This is likely the basis for your repeated strawman fallacies; the perception that others hold a given position has resulted in the ascription of that view to me, but without accuracy or justification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
That is your opinion and your opinion only.
A published article written by another author is self-evidently not my opinion only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
As long as the man sworn to represent me in the senate continues to refer to himself as a Latino I will continue to think of him that way. As long as he continues to advocate policies that harm non-Latinos I will continue to refuse to vote for him.
This section of the post actually provides another interesting insight. Many opponents of illegal immigration will speak of the harmful effects of certain policies that seem to favor illegal immigrants on citizens, but here, there is instead a dichotomy drawn between "Latinos" and "non-Latinos," demonstrating the difference between anti-immigration rhetoric that is not ethnically charged and that which is.
 
Old 09-18-2011, 02:51 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 788,884 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I would support it as long as it also included proof of financial security. For example 20G in a bank acct for more than 6 months. Or if they had a profession or education that was in demand here . Nurse or Doctor for example.
No money? No education? No profession that we need?
We dont need you.
Let me explain why. We kep hearing how if an immigrant is sponsored via fiancee or spousal VISA how easy it is for them. Well I had to provide financial proof that I could afford to sponsor. Immigrants should be held to the same standard as a citizen.
OK, would you be OK with applying this same $20k in the bank or a job we "need" standard to people who are already here and we get rid of all the deadbeats who just happened to be born here? I mean, same standards, right?
 
Old 09-18-2011, 08:49 PM
 
Location: bold new city of the south
5,200 posts, read 4,107,506 times
Reputation: 6156
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
OK, would you be OK with applying this same $20k in the bank or a job we "need" standard to people who are already here and we get rid of all the deadbeats who just happened to be born here? I mean, same standards, right?
First of all removing the 35-50 million legals that fist that description would be really hard to facilitate.

It would be much easier to remove the 10-15 million illegals (criminals).

They don't belong here. They are criminals, illegal aliens.

If you really feel this strong on 'immigrants', sponsor one yourself, instead of bugging us, actually do something to help them.
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:08 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 788,884 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddy5 View Post
First of all removing the 35-50 million legals that fist that description would be really hard to facilitate.

It would be much easier to remove the 10-15 million illegals (criminals).
what?

You just stick them on a plane and drop them off in somalia or siberia or whatever, same as you would with the illegals. Same exact thing. People born in the US are (according to people in this forum, anyway) easier to find, too. So it should be EASIER, not harder.

Quote:
They don't belong here. They are criminals, illegal aliens.
"they don't belong here" is begging the question. And (as previously discussed) they're not all criminals. But if we're going to use the "they're criminals" criteria for who "doesn't belong here," are we talking about deporting all criminals?

Quote:
If you really feel this strong on 'immigrants', sponsor one yourself, instead of bugging us, actually do something to help them.
what? I think the whole sponsorship idea is stupid. So there's no hypocrisy here if I don't sponsor one.
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
what?

You just stick them on a plane and drop them off in somalia or siberia or whatever, same as you would with the illegals. Same exact thing. People born in the US are (according to people in this forum, anyway) easier to find, too. So it should be EASIER, not harder.



"they don't belong here" is begging the question. And (as previously discussed) they're not all criminals. But if we're going to use the "they're criminals" criteria for who "doesn't belong here," are we talking about deporting all criminals?



what? I think the whole sponsorship idea is stupid. So there's no hypocrisy here if I don't sponsor one.
Are illegals who commit ID theft, fraud, and/or tax evasion criminals? If so, EVERY employed illegal is indeed a criminal. Not to mention, the countless illegals who have returned after being deported. They have committed FELONY offenses. So, what percentage of illegal aliens could realistically fall into the “non-criminal” category, excluding children under the age of 16?
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:32 PM
 
4,270 posts, read 7,885,000 times
Reputation: 1551
You know, Benicar, why not find out the answer?

Of the illegals, how many commit criminal offenses OR can be proven to commit criminal offenses (really, the illegals who jump the border but are never found guilty for doing so but do not do any other criminal offenses do not count as we cannot convict them for jumping over the border, as there's no proof)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Are illegals who commit ID theft, fraud, and/or tax evasion criminals? If so, EVERY employed illegal is indeed a criminal. Not to mention, the countless illegals who have returned after being deported. They have committed FELONY offenses. So, what percentage of illegal aliens could realistically fall into the “non-criminal” category, excluding children under the age of 16?
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
You know, Benicar, why not find out the answer?

Of the illegals, how many commit criminal offenses OR can be proven to commit criminal offenses (really, the illegals who jump the border but are never found guilty for doing so but do not do any other criminal offenses do not count as we cannot convict them for jumping over the border, as there's no proof)
If I'm not mistaken, every illegal alien working in this country is either using a stolen SSN (criminal), a fake SSN (criminal) or is working under the table, thus committing tax evasion (criminal). If you have data on the percentage of illegals who are working, but using a SSN legally issued by the SSA, please share.
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.


Closed Thread

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