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 11-10-2012, 09:29 AM
 
1,303 posts, read 1,254,252 times
Reputation: 1005

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
You have to understand we was a small country less populated, we had an industrial revolution. There was lots of work & cheap land. Many came here legally whatever the law was. They did not illegally come here.

What you want is open border or a Robin hood scenario.

Fact is everyone can't come here that wants to. Its a fact of life.
Everyone can't be rich another fact of life.
A Short History of the World

In the history of this country which is about 250 years we farmed mostly then we added manufacturing which accounted for about 24% of our economy. Then Nixon went to China, normalized relations, and China decided to stop being a 3rd world power and start producing goods to sell to the world with millions of workers. Meanwhile Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union (right?) and millions of new former Soviet workers entered international commerce. Finance and manufacturing went global and US manufacturing dropped to 12-13%. Meanwhile the US is lost in the 1950s, or thinks it is, and has not politically responded to this new hand dealt to it. Things have changed permanently.

Immigration reform, admit it, that's what everyone is talking about, is politics. My fear is that things are going to change with us acting like we are a superpower, when the truth is, other countries could destroy us financially in a heartbeat. The key word here is global.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2012, 09:53 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 59,007,110 times
Reputation: 22180
Well if cheap illegal labor is what it's all about for global competition, then we'd be best off leaving the illegals illegal.

Once legalized, they won't have to pick the lettuce for $4 an hour, they wouldn't have to work in factories for $6 an hour. They'd think they were entitled to minimum wage and good-paying American jobs --the jobs that Americans would be willing to do -- including those 24 million unemployed Americans.

No reason at all to give them legal status. They made the choice to break the laws when coming here. It's not as though the only choice is between a massive roundup and deportation or else easy and quick US citizenship.

Leave them illegal -- they already have the choice to go home and start over the right way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 09:56 AM
 
32,089 posts, read 14,815,561 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
A Short History of the World

In the history of this country which is about 250 years we farmed mostly then we added manufacturing which accounted for about 24% of our economy. Then Nixon went to China, normalized relations, and China decided to stop being a 3rd world power and start producing goods to sell to the world with millions of workers. Meanwhile Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union (right?) and millions of new former Soviet workers entered international commerce. Finance and manufacturing went global and US manufacturing dropped to 12-13%. Meanwhile the US is lost in the 1950s, or thinks it is, and has not politically responded to this new hand dealt to it. Things have changed permanently.

Immigration reform, admit it, that's what everyone is talking about, is politics. My fear is that things are going to change with us acting like we are a superpower, when the truth is, other countries could destroy us financially in a heartbeat. The key word here is global.
And it is bad politics. It isn't reform anyway it is just another amnesty. When do these amnesties stop? How man more millions are we going to forgive in the future? Today we have 23 million Americans out of work. Do you really think that amnesty will address that problem? No, in fact they will be allowed to remain here permanently and retain the jobs they are holding already that our Americans need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:53 AM
 
1,303 posts, read 1,254,252 times
Reputation: 1005
Default How Can It Be Said Differently?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
And it is bad politics. It isn't reform anyway it is just another amnesty. When do these amnesties stop? How man more millions are we going to forgive in the future? Today we have 23 million Americans out of work. Do you really think that amnesty will address that problem? No, in fact they will be allowed to remain here permanently and retain the jobs they are holding already that our Americans need.

I agree with what is said on this forum but a guest worker program is not a citizen track. Want your cake and eat it too? Develop a guest worker program like that in European countries. Today, young foreign nationals come to the US for the summer and work our resorts and leave. Same thing. They come and then go. Reform better not be another amnesty or we are all in trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,194 posts, read 4,365,142 times
Reputation: 2647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Let me point out your key words: only EU citizens can live in Denmark. Now let me explain how the EU works; If I live in Spain on a work visa, I can still travel throughout the EU, I would be limited to working in Spain. Your scenario of CA would limit me to not only living and working only in CA but it would also limit my travel to only CA. At least in Spain I can go to Portugal, France, etc.
I don't know the specific laws in regards to VISA's in the EU. All I know is that, there are people who are citizens of Denmark, who can't bring their wives and kids to Denmark because their wives and kids aren't EU citizens. I'm not sure what kind of VISA they have, but they don't allow them to live in Denmark, even though they are living in Sweden.

Secondly, I already told you that the federal government would still be able to hand out VISA's, and work VISA's(not residency VISA's) could obviously be an issue of regulating commerce. Just like they would hand out tourist VISA's, and diplomatic VISA's, etc.

I am fine with the federal government having the power to regulate immigration, I'm just saying, the states should also be able to allow in immigrants into their own territory, as long as they aren't interfering with the federal governments authority to effectively regulate trade, diplomacy, and national security.

Basically, an immigrant will first seek a federal VISA, because it gives them much more freedom of movement. But if the federal government puts you on a waiting list for 20 years. Under my system, you could then apply to individual states, which might not have any waiting list at all, but would limit you only to that state.

Quote:
Just so you know, my wife immigrated from Portugal, I have lived in Germany, Belgium, and Portugal. We own properties in Portugal. I have traveled through most of Europe. Travel is open there, you would be limiting travel here. Say I had family or friends living in Nevada, I wouldn't be able to visit them in your scenario of limited movement.
I would not be limiting travel here, I would be making travel here even more open to foreigners. You seem to believe I am stripping away the authority of the federal government, but I am not. I am just allowing the states to supplement federal immigration with additional state immigration in those states that want more immigration.

But even if each state completely took over their own immigration, there is no reason to believe that the people who already come here as tourists, will be turned away by any of the states. The states love tourism. You are really creating a problem where there is no problem.

And even if you could somehow prove that under my plan, it would be impossible for you to travel to some of the states(which I doubt). It would also be true that under the current system, many people already can't even step foot in the United States, even to see their own family who live here. And so under the current system, many people are already incapable of traveling in the United States. So it seems a little petty for you to complain because you might be inconvenienced, when other people under your system are outright denied.

Quote:
Lower costs for goods and services is but an assumption that would probably true for services but not necessarily for goods. Lettuce would not sky rocket (talk about rhetoric ), fuel costs have a larger effect to the costs of lettuce then does labor.
I don't even understand why you want to argue every damn thing with me, you remind me of my nephew. Are you really trying to argue that wages have nothing to do with the prices of goods? Are you saying that if we deported all the illegal immigrants, that the price of lettuce wouldn't go up?

Quote:
You are taking a Classic Liberal ideal and perverting it. The "free market" was theorized for the nation, not for the globe. You Libertarians somehow want to expand it beyond what it was intended.
The free market was theorized for the nation? Free market economics was largely the consequence of people like Adam Smith. And Adam Smith most certainly was for free trade across the globe. Milton Friedman constantly argued for free trade and open immigration.

Quote:
We already have 50 different choices, you made that point previously in comments. My immigration restrictions are already in place in every single country, and for good reason obviously.
Your immigration restrictions are a result of socialist thinking. Even the poorest countries in Africa have strict immigration policies.

Your immigration restrictions are an absolute disgrace to human freedom, human development, and human dignity. Why is it exactly that you believe that the states shouldn't be able to allow more immigration in addition to what the federal government already allows?

I just don't understand you, you really disgust me with your narrow view of the world.

Quote:
Educate myself? Wrong words bud. I suggest you REALLY pay attention to my words and what I state. The quotas were just over 27,000, why else do you think I stated over 27,000 per year?
Look, they were prevented from coming here, not all of them, but almost all of them. I can guarantee you that far more than 27,000 Jews were looking for an escape from the holocaust.

But all of that is wholly irrelevant because we can't change history.

My question was, had the federal government allowed the individual states to allow in immigrants if they so desired under my plan, which is also similar to the immigration of the 1800's. Would more Jews have been able to come here during the 1930's and 1940's, during the rise of Nazi Germany and then WWII?

This article claims our immigration policy effectively killed 200,000 Jews during the holocaust(or at least our immigration policy made it impossible to save them).

http://www.holocaustcenter.org/kinde...mmigration.pdf

Quote:
Lets use your key words: In your view! I don't care about your view, I don't care about what you think is ridiculous. Now I am defending the Holocaust. Do not impose your ignorance of my words. The nation back then was strongly for quotas, 83% of the nation in fact. If anybody needs to educate themselves I would suggest you look in the mirror.
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I understand that the country wanted quotas. But for what? For national defense? No. For diplomatic reasons? No. For trade issues? No. Then while the federal government could have imposed quotas, just like it basically does to this day. The individual states could have allowed in more immigration, if they so desired.

I don't know for an absolute fact how that might have changed immigration during that time, maybe none of the states would have allowed in any more immigrants than the federal government was allowing in. But it is far more likely, that had the states had the authority to provide their own state residency, that far more immigrants would have been able to come here during that time than what came here.

I mean, what do you think? Would states having more power over immigration mean we would have more immigrants or less immigrants over the course of this nations history?



Anyway, I'm not going to fight with you every day about immigration. You seem to believe that a one-size-fits-all federal immigration policy that strips away all authority of the states to regulate who is allowed to live in their own states, is superior to a system which allows states to allow in more immigrants than the feds let in, as long as those immigrants remain within the borders of that state, as to not affect the rights and integrity of other states.

I disagree with your assessment, and I have tried to argue on a historical and logical basis for why your system unnecessarily restricts immigration, and is a very callous system, which has caused or tolerated the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Your system is the exact opposite of humanitarian. And you have failed to show any evidence to why your system is superior, other than saying "all the other countries have it, so it must be good", without recognizing that not all of the countries have our immigration system, nor are there many countries that are a union of states. As you mentioned before, in Europe every country regulates both immigration and naturalization. In Canada, I know their provinces have a lot more control over immigration policy than our states have here. But that doesn't matter. Because obviously our immigration system is perfect, and those countries are idiots.

Anyway, I'm done fighting with you, it is a waste of my time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 01:07 PM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,144,193 times
Reputation: 2200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
A Short History of the World

In the history of this country which is about 250 years we farmed mostly then we added manufacturing which accounted for about 24% of our economy. Then Nixon went to China, normalized relations, and China decided to stop being a 3rd world power and start producing goods to sell to the world with millions of workers. Meanwhile Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union (right?) and millions of new former Soviet workers entered international commerce. Finance and manufacturing went global and US manufacturing dropped to 12-13%. Meanwhile the US is lost in the 1950s, or thinks it is, and has not politically responded to this new hand dealt to it. Things have changed permanently.

Immigration reform, admit it, that's what everyone is talking about, is politics. My fear is that things are going to change with us acting like we are a superpower, when the truth is, other countries could destroy us financially in a heartbeat. The key word here is global.
The main point is everyone can't come here legally and that will always remain a fact.

Countries can do whatever they wish as we can to them.

We don't need immigration reform, just enforcement & ending birth right citizenship to illegals who exploit the 14th amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 02:43 PM
 
1,303 posts, read 1,254,252 times
Reputation: 1005
Default This Just Goes On

[quote=Redshadowz;26894110]I don't know the specific laws in regards to VISA's in the EU. All I know is that, there are people who are citizens of Denmark, who can't bring their wives and kids to Denmark because their wives and kids aren't EU citizens. I'm not sure what kind of VISA they have, but they don't allow them to live in Denmark, even though they are living in Sweden.

Secondly, I already told you that the federal government would still be able to hand out VISA's, and work VISA's(not residency VISA's) could obviously be an issue of regulating commerce. Just like they would hand out tourist VISA's, and diplomatic VISA's, etc.

Immigration law is complex not because its hard but because it grew as a series of compromises one on top of the other.

I think and check me on this but US immigration issued about 400,000 visas and about 750,000 family based visas in 2010, green cards, to the immediate families of foreign visa holders and naturalized citizens to be here forever. The US is big on family unity but it never made any sense to me.

The way the USCIS immigration works for labor based visas, H1Bs and green cards, is that each state where the alien will work or works must issue a labor certification that the alien's skill set is needed. So petition for visa plus labor certification. The states would certify the back of a monkey if they could get someone to hold it. They have left it to USCIS to do the heavy lifting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 06:00 PM
 
32,089 posts, read 14,815,561 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
I agree with what is said on this forum but a guest worker program is not a citizen track. Want your cake and eat it too? Develop a guest worker program like that in European countries. Today, young foreign nationals come to the US for the summer and work our resorts and leave. Same thing. They come and then go. Reform better not be another amnesty or we are all in trouble.
But we don't need these people so why would we implement more guest worker programs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 06:27 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,722,780 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I don't know the specific laws in regards to VISA's in the EU. All I know is that, there are people who are citizens of Denmark, who can't bring their wives and kids to Denmark because their wives and kids aren't EU citizens. I'm not sure what kind of VISA they have, but they don't allow them to live in Denmark, even though they are living in Sweden.
The 'Love Bridge' for Immigrants Between Sweden and Denmark | PRI's The World
Denmark’s restrictive family reunification laws make it incredibly difficult for Danes to marry and live in Denmark with a non-European spouse. Prevented from living together in Copenhagen, Sara and her Jordanian husband moved to Sweden, where they had an easy time getting visas.

Denmark actually charged a bond ($11,000) for the husband to live there, they didn't pay the bond and found it easier to get a visa with no bond in Sweden.

Its rather simple to find the info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Secondly, I already told you that the federal government would still be able to hand out VISA's, and work VISA's(not residency VISA's) could obviously be an issue of regulating commerce. Just like they would hand out tourist VISA's, and diplomatic VISA's, etc.

I am fine with the federal government having the power to regulate immigration, I'm just saying, the states should also be able to allow in immigrants into their own territory, as long as they aren't interfering with the federal governments authority to effectively regulate trade, diplomacy, and national security.

Basically, an immigrant will first seek a federal VISA, because it gives them much more freedom of movement. But if the federal government puts you on a waiting list for 20 years. Under my system, you could then apply to individual states, which might not have any waiting list at all, but would limit you only to that state.
See Mistermobile's comment Immigration law is complex not because its hard but because it grew as a series of compromises one on top of the other.... The way the USCIS immigration works for labor based visas, H1Bs and green cards, is that each state where the alien will work or works must issue a labor certification that the alien's skill set is needed. So petition for visa plus labor certification. The states would certify the back of a monkey if they could get someone to hold it. They have left it to USCIS to do the heavy lifting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I would not be limiting travel here, I would be making travel here even more open to foreigners. You seem to believe I am stripping away the authority of the federal government, but I am not. I am just allowing the states to supplement federal immigration with additional state immigration in those states that want more immigration.

But even if each state completely took over their own immigration, there is no reason to believe that the people who already come here as tourists, will be turned away by any of the states. The states love tourism. You are really creating a problem where there is no problem.

And even if you could somehow prove that under my plan, it would be impossible for you to travel to some of the states(which I doubt). It would also be true that under the current system, many people already can't even step foot in the United States, even to see their own family who live here. And so under the current system, many people are already incapable of traveling in the United States. So it seems a little petty for you to complain because you might be inconvenienced, when other people under your system are outright denied.
I should not be inconvenienced in my own country just because some foreigner wants to come here, why should I lose any of my constitutional protections because of it? The USC is for the people of the US (Preamble USC- to ourselves and our posterity), it is our form of govt, not the worlds. Every country has their own forms of govt. which they can change themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I don't even understand why you want to argue every damn thing with me, you remind me of my nephew. Are you really trying to argue that wages have nothing to do with the prices of goods? Are you saying that if we deported all the illegal immigrants, that the price of lettuce wouldn't go up?
I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote about your claim of lettuce. Comprehension is the key, something you seem to lack., along with implying things that aren't even said. Now for Lettuce, if we got rid of all the lettuce pickers would the cost go up? You do know they have machines that harvest lettuce right? So would it not be cheaper to buy a harvester and rid yourself of wages and taxes on those wages to include the imposed requirements of legal H2A workers, ie medical, housing, etc? Now, what i said about lettuce was that the cost of fuel has a bigger increase to the overall cost then do wages. I suggest you learn about the field to market costs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The free market was theorized for the nation? Free market economics was largely the consequence of people like Adam Smith. And Adam Smith most certainly was for free trade across the globe. Milton Friedman constantly argued for free trade and open immigration.
Smith was for equal trade not "free trade" .
Quote:
: classical economists such as Adam Smith believed that an economy should be free of monopoly rents, while proponents of laissez faire believe that people should be free to form monopolies. In this article "free market" is largely identified with laissez faire, and competitive markets, though alternative senses are discussed in this section and in criticism. The identification of the "free market" with "laissez faire" was notably used in the 1962 Capitalism and Freedom, by economist Milton Friedman, which is credited with popularizing this usage.
If one nation produces something that another doesn't then they trade for goods, this good is worth that amount (say $10) and that good is worth this (say $12) amount, I would get say 12 items for 10.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl.../robert-rector
Quote:
A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” he warned.
You don't understand Friedman.

Same link
Quote:
There is a rough one-to-one fiscal balance between low-skill immigrant families and upper-middle-class families. It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family. Even Julian Simon, the godfather of open-border advocates, acknowledged that imposing such a burden on taxpayers was unreasonable, stating, “immigrants who would be a direct economic burden upon citizens through the public coffers should have no claim to be admitted” into the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Your immigration restrictions are a result of socialist thinking. Even the poorest countries in Africa have strict immigration policies.


Although in contemporary usage free markets are commonly associated with capitalism, free markets have been advocated by socialists and have been included in various different proposals for market socialism.

You might want to think about who you call a Socialist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Your immigration restrictions are an absolute disgrace to human freedom, human development, and human dignity. Why is it exactly that you believe that the states shouldn't be able to allow more immigration in addition to what the federal government already allows?
Now your true colors come out. Humans are free in their own countries, you simply have a warped understanding of it. The States Rights are limited when it comes to immigration, for which I have explained to you already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I just don't understand you, you really disgust me with your narrow view of the world.
Like I give a SHAT that I disgust you. WAFM You obviously have no clue how the world actually works, probably have never been overseas or have lived in a different country before. You sound as though you are some college kid in his second year of economics classes. All assumption with little provable theory.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I understand that the country wanted quotas. But for what? For national defense? No. For diplomatic reasons? No. For trade issues? No. Then while the federal government could have imposed quotas, just like it basically does to this day. The individual states could have allowed in more immigration, if they so desired.
I understand exactly what you are saying, I am simply saying you have no understanding of our immigration laws or how they came about. Mistermobile gives you some info, I suggest you heed what is said. The States do have a say in it right now, but it starts with the employer being unable to fill a vacancy locally. The issue is that the employers would rather hire illegals due to the taxes they don't pay on them, the time they have to spend obtaining legal workers on visas or the costs associated with legal workers.

Do you really think that legalizing a farm worker will keep him working on the farm? The farmers will be in the same situation they are in now, what you propose doesn't fix that, in fact what you propose has a major effect on our low-skilled legal workers, making them compete even more with low-skilled workers all for the benefit of you getting a cheap roof on your house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I don't know for an absolute fact how that might have changed immigration during that time, maybe none of the states would have allowed in any more immigrants than the federal government was allowing in. But it is far more likely, that had the states had the authority to provide their own state residency, that far more immigrants would have been able to come here during that time than what came here.

I mean, what do you think? Would states having more power over immigration mean we would have more immigrants or less immigrants over the course of this nations history?
whether it was likely or not, neither you nor I know, so to make the claims you make (assumptions being claimed as fact) doesn't do anything but have me point out your assumptions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Anyway, I'm not going to fight with you every day about immigration. You seem to believe that a one-size-fits-all federal immigration policy that strips away all authority of the states to regulate who is allowed to live in their own states, is superior to a system which allows states to allow in more immigrants than the feds let in, as long as those immigrants remain within the borders of that state, as to not affect the rights and integrity of other states.
The States gave up those rights willingly to the Feds starting with the AoC, this is why we are a Union, One Nation. You want to go back to the times of the colonies where each colony had its own requirements and were non-transferable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I disagree with your assessment, and I have tried to argue on a historical and logical basis for why your system unnecessarily restricts immigration, and is a very callous system, which has caused or tolerated the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Your system is the exact opposite of humanitarian. And you have failed to show any evidence to why your system is superior, other than saying "all the other countries have it, so it must be good", without recognizing that not all of the countries have our immigration system, nor are there many countries that are a union of states. As you mentioned before, in Europe every country regulates both immigration and naturalization. In Canada, I know their provinces have a lot more control over immigration policy than our states have here. But that doesn't matter. Because obviously our immigration system is perfect, and those countries are idiots.

Anyway, I'm done fighting with you, it is a waste of my time.
I never said our system was perfect, I said our system does allow for many things that you claim it does not. When that is pointed out you run to the holocaust and attempt to blame the US for hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths are simply due to our policies on immigration. I only need to show your shortcomings with your ideals of your immigration desires. I'm fine with our system, I understand how our system came about (something you obviously fail in), I don't see why we need to change our system so you can have a cheaper roof.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 11-10-2012 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 06:55 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,722,780 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
What amazes me is that I messaged to this forum that the US has one million new foreign citizens each year legally admitted into US and not a peep. WAKE UP!

All the federal government cares about is that a huge influx of aliens doesn't produce Balkanization. The US doesn't want people getting together and living inside its borders with allegiances to a foreign state or culture.


Please don't fight reform. Fight to control reform.
Well said and put! 1M per year now vs 1796 to 1869 there were only a total of 9M for the span, from 1870 to 1915 there were 20M allowed in (keep in mind the Chinese exclusion act was during this time). How are we not better now than the open immigration up to 1914? from 1796 to 1914 was about 29M. From 1915 to today that number is much much higher. Yet we are called restrictive.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 11-10-2012 at 08:18 PM..
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
Similar Threads
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