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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2012, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,305 posts, read 1,984,315 times
Reputation: 578

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Uh, since it referred to the year 2009 how would that relate to today? I imagine that in the past three years as for Mexican immigration both legal and illegal their numbers have increased since 2009. My point was to point out that Mexicans are here in the largest numbers both legally and illegally. Many in here claim that they are being discriminated against in our immigration policies and that simply isn't true.
But YOu said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
...Here are the stats again on how many Mexicans are here legally and how many are here illegally(estimated).

Mexicans here legally = 276,550. Mexicans here illegally = 6,650,000.

Top 10 legal and illegal immigrant nationalities in the U.S. - OhMyGov News
YOu didn't say it was the Mexicans legally here in 2009, nor is there any assumption that YOu meant YOu were only referring to 2009. The "Mexicans here illegally" is used as a cumulative number, and refers to gains over previous years. As I said, 2009 was a higher year, both illegal, legal, and naturalizing citizens that came from Mexico have decreased in the years since 2009.

Did YOu also not understand my data point of 'K'-Class visas? For the data YOu quoted in 2009, they are not represented on the chart. Did they not also come "legally" to the United States?

This entire episode actually shows how data is posted on a website in a misleading manner, and re-hashed innumerable times afterwards by those that accept it as truth without understanding. I've see FAIR equally misrepresent data (in their case it is actually concerning the sponsorship levels for legal immigrants) too. Are YOu willing to continue to repeat this "data" now that YOu know the errors, or just trudge on like YOu never got 0wned?...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2012, 07:52 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 6,433,454 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
But YOu said:



YOu didn't say it was the Mexicans legally here in 2009, nor is there any assumption that YOu meant YOu were only referring to 2009. The "Mexicans here illegally" is used as a cumulative number, and refers to gains over previous years. As I said, 2009 was a higher year, both illegal, legal, and naturalizing citizens that came from Mexico have decreased in the years since 2009.

Did YOu also not understand my data point of 'K'-Class visas? For the data YOu quoted in 2009, they are not represented on the chart. Did they not also come "legally" to the United States?

This entire episode actually shows how data is posted on a website in a misleading manner, and re-hashed innumerable times afterwards by those that accept it as truth without understanding. I've see FAIR equally misrepresent data (in their case it is actually concerning the sponsorship levels for legal immigrants) too. Are YOu willing to continue to repeat this "data" now that YOu know the errors, or just trudge on like YOu never got 0wned?...
What difference does it make? I at first missed what year they were talking about. Mexicans are still here by far legally and illegally in the largest numbers today and we all know that. Why don't you focus on the meat of this fact rather than quibbling about a certain year or certain types of visas? My concern is mostly about the millions that are here illegally. As for legal immigration I think we need to be more diversified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2012, 08:10 PM
 
2,546 posts, read 949,481 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
I'm from Chicago, and no one here gives a damn about illegal immigration. It's been a shock to me to read online that so many people are afraid of illegal immigration, and even reverse their general philosophy of libertarianism and governmental nonintervention when it comes to illegal immigrants.

I'm sure that they leech off of the government, but there are so many people leeching off of the government that I am positive that they are a small minority doing so. They commit crimes and require government services, but once again, so do many people who are perfectly legal citizens. I somehow doubt in the face of soaring medical costs and bailouts and unnecessary corporate tax breaks that taking care of illegal immigrants is but a small fraction of the money that the government wastes every year. So why do people care?
Convenient scapegoats. It's easier to blame another group or person for your failings in life than to look in the mirror and blame the real culprit. Hey , msot of us have done it from time to time, some of us blame our parents, some of us blame our spouses, some blame society, government, or circumstances, and some of us blame illegals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2012, 08:24 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 3,332,016 times
Reputation: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frugality View Post
Convenient scapegoats. It's easier to blame another group or person for your failings in life than to look in the mirror and blame the real culprit. Hey , msot of us have done it from time to time, some of us blame our parents, some of us blame our spouses, some blame society, government, or circumstances, and some of us blame illegals.
Uh; illegal aliens have NO right to be here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2012, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,305 posts, read 1,984,315 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
What difference does it make? I at first missed what year they were talking about. Mexicans are still here by far legally and illegally in the largest numbers today and we all know that. Why don't you focus on the meat of this fact rather than quibbling about a certain year or certain types of visas? My concern is mostly about the millions that are here illegally. As for legal immigration I think we need to be more diversified.
No, YOu quoted the number as if it was the complete, cumulative total of Mexicans that legally came to the United States. YOu sourced data (and had said "here are the stats again" because YOu hadn't caught it before either), not even verifying what it meant. The ratio that YOu hoped to represent about more Mexicans coming illegally fell entirely on its face.

If YOu consider gathering and representing data correctly as "quibbling", YOu can make up whatever stories YOu want. I know more legal and illegal immigrants come from Mexico. Why do YOu have a problem with those that come legally (and getting their numbers correct)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 2,653,513 times
Reputation: 2344
Disclaimer: Since this forum is about illegal immigrants, any reference in my posts to "Mexicans" shall mean "ILLEGAL Mexicans".

Quote:
[IBMMuseum;23638923]I'm really going to have an issue with YOu. Since my Mexican wife and stepchildren have documentation (and as a household we pay income, property, and sales taxes), I going to assume that YOu think it is not authentic by YOur statement. Why are YOu making that allegation?
How can you compare yourself and your families legal status to that of illegal immigrants? You and your family are not part of the problem. I understand you taking the illegal immigration personal, but you need to step back and take yourself and your family out of the picture. As you said, they are legal.

Quote:
Then whom are the fleas in YOur representation?...

I thought it was against forum rules to represent any person or group of people as an insect...
As was explained it was an analogy. I would think since your family has legal status, I assume you went through the right steps to get the status, you pay taxes, you would find it upsetting that YOu are contributing to the free aid that illegals get. I would be upset if I was doing everything necessary to get legal status, while so many are looking for free passage.

Quote:
The regulations for Legal Permanent Residents ("Green Card" holders) accessing most government benefits themselves (not for any U.S. citizen children) is that they must have been in that status for at least five years. Those that have naturalized (the spouse of a U.S. citizen can apply to naturalize as soon three years as an LPR, married to the same U.S. citizen for those three years; That naturalization is typically derivative for minor accompanying children) are able to qualify as well. The LPR spouse and minor [EDIT: children/]stepchildren of a U.S. servicemember are able to access government benefits (if qualified by income) without the five year delay.

YOur objections to an "amnesty" seem to be more focused on the communities YOu relate to being populated by Hispanics...
I did not say I objected to amnesty. What I said was that there could be benefits from amnesty, and one of those benefits is that for those who can qualify for a greencard would require that they prove that they can support themselves and their family and, from what I understand, that they would not be entitled to government assistance. It would also mean that those who qualify will also be protected under employment laws, something they they had ignored while illegal, but will use to their benefit if they get a greencard. They can demand equal pay, benefits, and everything else that a working citizen would receive.That would fall to the employers, who would then have to pay the taxes, provide the benefits, etc. They will also be required to pay federal state and, if applicable, city taxes, in addition to local tax on purchases.

Did OP mention that he lives in a Mexican community? In states that have a large number of illegal Mexicans, created communities, or barrios, which translates into low-income, poor communities, and these communities do not add value to neighborhoods. Especially when there are 8 people living in a one bedroom apartment.

Quote:
And YOur phrasing of the statement sounds like YOu include "Green Card" holders also as "illegal aliens" for YOur definition...

Why would YOu make such a statement?...
I know the difference between an illegal, a green card holder, and a citizen. And a green card holder falls right in the middle - they are for all intent and purpose a guest in the US.


Quote:
Be aware the literal translation of "barrio" is "neighborhood". By context ("barrio" is Spanish, which is used by Hispanics) YOu are saying YOu don't want Hispanic neighborhoods "popping up all over" the United States. Even though an "amnesty" would legalize their status, YOu have a problem with what YOu think their communities would be.
In the US a barrio is considered a poor neighborhood comprised of people with the same ethnicity, in this case Mexicans. Do you really believe that with the number of illegals, they will create middle class neighborhoods when the majority can't speak English, are illerate, uneducated and hold low paying jobs? I have seen barrios made up of Mexicans. Not a very pretty picture. These communities brought the value of property surrounding them down.

Quote:
Trouble is, FAIR also groups legal immigrants in their "truths"...
If you are not a part of the problem, then it shouldn't apply. My husband is Arab-American. When people talk about Arabs being terrorists, I don't jump up and down and defend Arabs because my husband is Arab. My husband is not part of the problem. He, more than me, hates what terrorism has done to the world.

And I, along with many other people - citizens and those who became citizens by going through the legal process, are opposed to being treated like second class citizens, being second in line to illegal immigrants.

Quote:
YOu do know, just like YOu have incorrectly stated sponsorship standards above, that they also have incorrect information on their site regarding sponsorship?...
I never really had a reason to question or experience what is stated about sponsorship. Maybe you should contact the proper agencies and have them correct their sites and post the right standards, which would apply to ALL illegals. Gosh, just think how many people may be missing out if the standards are actually lower.

While YOu are at it, get your keyboard fixed.

Last edited by softblueyz; 03-31-2012 at 06:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 06:58 AM
Status: "20 million views! Thanks, everyone!" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
36,856 posts, read 20,050,919 times
Reputation: 21945
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
I'm from Chicago, and no one here gives a damn about illegal immigration. It's been a shock to me to read online that so many people are afraid of illegal immigration, and even reverse their general philosophy of libertarianism and governmental nonintervention when it comes to illegal immigrants.

I'm sure that they leech off of the government, but there are so many people leeching off of the government that I am positive that they are a small minority doing so. They commit crimes and require government services, but once again, so do many people who are perfectly legal citizens. I somehow doubt in the face of soaring medical costs and bailouts and unnecessary corporate tax breaks that taking care of illegal immigrants is but a small fraction of the money that the government wastes every year. So why do people care?
First of all, you don't currently reside in a border state; therefore, it won't directly affect you in your immediate area. Secondly, and more importantly, illegal means not legal, meaning against the law. Why would anyone in their right minds support any semblance of illegality, let alone rationalize a serious situation? There is criteria for membership in the U.S. for any non-resident of this country who wishes to become an actual resident, and like it or not, it has to be followed to the letter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 07:21 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 6,433,454 times
Reputation: 2121
For the umpteenth time I have no problem with legal immigration in numbers we can absorb without negatively impacting our own citizenry. However, within those numbers diversity should be taken into account. In otherwords to keep the melting pot intact we should have quotas from several different countries/ethnic groups rather than most coming from one country/ethnic group. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Now can we get back on topic of which this forum is about and that is "illegal" immigration?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,305 posts, read 1,984,315 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
For the umpteenth time I have no problem with legal immigration in numbers we can absorb without negatively impacting our own citizenry...
Apparently YOu feel that even 276,550 is too many Mexicans (which might need to be qualified as "legal Mexicans" in the local assumptive terminology). Try as we might, our demographics are going to change ratios for Asians and Blacks, while Whites and Amerindians do not have a replacement birth rate high enough (a conundrum that maybe we need to immigrate more of the indigenous). We would have to reach "Zimmerman Terminology" in YOur Mexican Standoff plan - To immigrate they've got to call themselves "White Hispanics".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 05:57 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 6,433,454 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Apparently YOu feel that even 276,550 is too many Mexicans (which might need to be qualified as "legal Mexicans" in the local assumptive terminology). Try as we might, our demographics are going to change ratios for Asians and Blacks, while Whites and Amerindians do not have a replacement birth rate high enough (a conundrum that maybe we need to immigrate more of the indigenous). We would have to reach "Zimmerman Terminology" in YOur Mexican Standoff plan - To immigrate they've got to call themselves "White Hispanics".
Good, I am glad you are catching on now. We have way to many legal and illegal immigrant Mexicans and other Latinos here compared to other ethnic/national groups. Are you opposed to diversity?

Asians and blacks are not procreating at the rate that Hispanics do. My concern is about retaining our identifying culture and language. I could give a rat's behind about skin color or race. Something you seem to not be getting.

Non-hispanic whites are procreating at replacement levels. We already have over 310 million in this country. Why should we procreate above that level?

Now again, may I ask that we get back to the topic of illegal immigration?
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 $89,000 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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.

2005-2014, 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 - Top