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 06-30-2008, 07:28 PM
 
Location: California
3,172 posts, read 6,008,666 times
Reputation: 332

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NibblingNed View Post
I was almost too lazy myself to go back and see what I'd said. I believe I was concerned about your incautious use of language. Your use of "Mexican" to apparently describe persons in the U.S. of Mexican descent is of particular concern, but I went in a different direction for some reason. Sorry for presuming you didn't watch the video. Perhaps when you're feeling less lazy you could repsond.
Many of us refer to ourselves simply as Mexican. We don't mean nationality by it, but our race is so mixed(at least the way we see it) we don't really feel comfortable calling ourselves Spanish, or Aztec, or Amerindian. So we just say Mexican..I guess it's kind of an umbrella term stemming from identity issues of a very mixed race.

I acknowledge the distinction of a Mexican national, and a American of Mexican descent. But it's just what we call ourselves. Especially those of us of mixed Mestizo background. No harm or disrespect to America intended.

I still don't understand what you were challenging me on. I just said its not so impossible for many of these groups to have ties to white supremacists, even if most of its members are unaware of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2008, 01:27 AM
 
Location: OC, CA
3,309 posts, read 5,040,390 times
Reputation: 645
La Raza will always view me, and many others in this forum as racist. The more we let it enrage us, the more we feed into their taunting speech.

This about it, that whole video was a big lie. Those people aren't racist, they just oppose illegal immigrant rights. I can just as much call an organization called THE RACE a racist group.

If we started a group called LA RAZA BLANCA (the white race) I am sure they would disown us for being white supremacist, even though this group is clearly latino supremacist. Its just the way they operate because they know that what the illegal aliens are doing is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,701,482 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocexpo View Post
La Raza will always view me, and many others in this forum as racist. The more we let it enrage us, the more we feed into their taunting speech.

This about it, that whole video was a big lie. Those people aren't racist, they just oppose illegal immigrant rights. I can just as much call an organization called THE RACE a racist group.

If we started a group called LA RAZA BLANCA (the white race) I am sure they would disown us for being white supremacist, even though this group is clearly latino supremacist. Its just the way they operate because they know that what the illegal aliens are doing is wrong.
There are groups in Argentina and Chile with the title Armada Blanca (White Army) that are neo-Nazi.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 07:30 PM
 
77 posts, read 101,366 times
Reputation: 18
I couldn't take your anti-corporate rhetoric seriously enough to not mock it as "hate speech", Benicar. NCLR is not pro-illegal immigration, nor are its corporate partners and funders. Nor am I, but I concede to being an "illegal alien apologist" as you have defined the term. I haven't stated a position on illegal immigration (I believe all immigration should be legal). I just don't come to the "debate" assuming that corporations have a secret pro-illegal alien agenda. The words I highlighted from your prior post were buzzwords of kookery--no disrespect.

I ran across someone online complaining that women's rights groups had lobbied for a crackdown on "unscrupulous" online mail-order bride agencies. Supposedly, they wanted to limit the number of desirable females competing for the attention of U.S. males--meaning himself, of course, as he was unable to bring in his "Anya" (or find a sufficiently "American" spouse) because of those bitter, feminist hags. That "argument" do anything for you? Women's rights groups that oppose the "exploitation" of foreign women are blamed because policies they favor have the incidental "benefit" of making more men "available" for their "constituency". Sound familiar? Sound crazy?

Your analogy fails. There is no quid pro quo in the case of corporate funding of NCLR (otherwise, prove it). Is there something sinister about a businessperson giving to a scholarship fund that funds students majoring in his or her industry? Maybe prospective students should not have that scholarship available (to "live a better life", so to speak) if workers in that industry object to the increase in labor competition. Their analogy fails, not because "illegals are illegal!" "They didn't earn it!" etc., but because there is no quid pro quo. The businessperson derives no exclusive benefit from giving. (The scholarship student OTOH benefits, perhaps substantially, but carrying this argument to the question of foreign labor means--for some reason--that that benefit is off the table, even among those making a "moral" argument favoring domestic labor.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Obviously, you subscribe to the philosophy of “the end justifies the means” -- the “end” being mega profits, the “means” being cheap foreign labor (legal or otherwise).
Provided the parties in a labor exchange are in agreement and of age and capacity to consent to the exchange, the "ends" absolutely justify the "means". The current distortion is the differing "capacity" due to immigration status and a refusal to tie net migration (given the natural increase rate and age structure of the U.S., this means labor force growth) through official channels to labor force needs. I benefit considerably from mega-profits and suffer little from cheap labor. (I prefer domestic labor ("legal" or otherwise), of course.) Don't hold your breath waiting for me (or anyone else) to apologize for my (or his or her) locational and class bias.

Were you, Benicar, against "illegal immigration" or foreign labor generally? The Cohen & Grigsby reference involves legal immigration. There is nothing illegal (has the U.S. DOL or DOJ found otherwise?) or unethical (has the Pennsylvania Bar Association found otherwise?) about advising employers on how to comply with the law? That's what law firms do. Is legal immigration only "legal" and justified when it meets your standards? Most of those aliens were already working in the U.S., but were seeking an adjustment of status--the "Green Card" that would give them a "benefit" over their competitors and allow "them", in two or three generations, to petition to keep someone else out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Arizona
2,065 posts, read 3,180,430 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by NibblingNed View Post
I couldn't take your anti-corporate rhetoric seriously enough to not mock it as "hate speech", Benicar. NCLR is not pro-illegal immigration, nor are its corporate partners and funders. Nor am I, but I concede to being an "illegal alien apologist" as you have defined the term. I haven't stated a position on illegal immigration (I believe all immigration should be legal). I just don't come to the "debate" assuming that corporations have a secret pro-illegal alien agenda. The words I highlighted from your prior post were buzzwords of kookery--no disrespect.

I ran across someone online complaining that women's rights groups had lobbied for a crackdown on "unscrupulous" online mail-order bride agencies. Supposedly, they wanted to limit the number of desirable females competing for the attention of U.S. males--meaning himself, of course, as he was unable to bring in his "Anya" (or find a sufficiently "American" spouse) because of those bitter, feminist hags. That "argument" do anything for you? Women's rights groups that oppose the "exploitation" of foreign women are blamed because policies they favor have the incidental "benefit" of making more men "available" for their "constituency". Sound familiar? Sound crazy?

Your analogy fails. There is no quid pro quo in the case of corporate funding of NCLR (otherwise, prove it). Is there something sinister about a businessperson giving to a scholarship fund that funds students majoring in his or her industry? Maybe prospective students should not have that scholarship available (to "live a better life", so to speak) if workers in that industry object to the increase in labor competition. Their analogy fails, not because "illegals are illegal!" "They didn't earn it!" etc., but because there is no quid pro quo. The businessperson derives no exclusive benefit from giving. (The scholarship student OTOH benefits, perhaps substantially, but carrying this argument to the question of foreign labor means--for some reason--that that benefit is off the table, even among those making a "moral" argument favoring domestic labor.)



Provided the parties in a labor exchange are in agreement and of age and capacity to consent to the exchange, the "ends" absolutely justify the "means". The current distortion is the differing "capacity" due to immigration status and a refusal to tie net migration (given the natural increase rate and age structure of the U.S., this means labor force growth) through official channels to labor force needs. I benefit considerably from mega-profits and suffer little from cheap labor. (I prefer domestic labor ("legal" or otherwise), of course.) Don't hold your breath waiting for me (or anyone else) to apologize for my (or his or her) locational and class bias.

Were you, Benicar, against "illegal immigration" or foreign labor generally? The Cohen & Grigsby reference involves legal immigration. There is nothing illegal (has the U.S. DOL or DOJ found otherwise?) or unethical (has the Pennsylvania Bar Association found otherwise?) about advising employers on how to comply with the law? That's what law firms do. Is legal immigration only "legal" and justified when it meets your standards? Most of those aliens were already working in the U.S., but were seeking an adjustment of status--the "Green Card" that would give them a "benefit" over their competitors and allow "them", in two or three generations, to petition to keep someone else out.
You sound like a shill for the NAU and the ULTIMATE prize of Corporatism, One World Government run of, by and for the multi-national bigwigs who are REALLY the ones in control.

Nothing personal, but I think your POV SUCKS!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,850,945 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by NibblingNed View Post
I couldn't take your anti-corporate rhetoric seriously enough to not mock it as "hate speech", Benicar. NCLR is not pro-illegal immigration, nor are its corporate partners and funders. Nor am I, but I concede to being an "illegal alien apologist" as you have defined the term. I haven't stated a position on illegal immigration (I believe all immigration should be legal). I just don't come to the "debate" assuming that corporations have a secret pro-illegal alien agenda. The words I highlighted from your prior post were buzzwords of kookery--no disrespect.

I ran across someone online complaining that women's rights groups had lobbied for a crackdown on "unscrupulous" online mail-order bride agencies. Supposedly, they wanted to limit the number of desirable females competing for the attention of U.S. males--meaning himself, of course, as he was unable to bring in his "Anya" (or find a sufficiently "American" spouse) because of those bitter, feminist hags. That "argument" do anything for you? Women's rights groups that oppose the "exploitation" of foreign women are blamed because policies they favor have the incidental "benefit" of making more men "available" for their "constituency". Sound familiar? Sound crazy?

Your analogy fails. There is no quid pro quo in the case of corporate funding of NCLR (otherwise, prove it). Is there something sinister about a businessperson giving to a scholarship fund that funds students majoring in his or her industry? Maybe prospective students should not have that scholarship available (to "live a better life", so to speak) if workers in that industry object to the increase in labor competition. Their analogy fails, not because "illegals are illegal!" "They didn't earn it!" etc., but because there is no quid pro quo. The businessperson derives no exclusive benefit from giving. (The scholarship student OTOH benefits, perhaps substantially, but carrying this argument to the question of foreign labor means--for some reason--that that benefit is off the table, even among those making a "moral" argument favoring domestic labor.)



Provided the parties in a labor exchange are in agreement and of age and capacity to consent to the exchange, the "ends" absolutely justify the "means". The current distortion is the differing "capacity" due to immigration status and a refusal to tie net migration (given the natural increase rate and age structure of the U.S., this means labor force growth) through official channels to labor force needs. I benefit considerably from mega-profits and suffer little from cheap labor. (I prefer domestic labor ("legal" or otherwise), of course.) Don't hold your breath waiting for me (or anyone else) to apologize for my (or his or her) locational and class bias.

Were you, Benicar, against "illegal immigration" or foreign labor generally? The Cohen & Grigsby reference involves legal immigration. There is nothing illegal (has the U.S. DOL or DOJ found otherwise?) or unethical (has the Pennsylvania Bar Association found otherwise?) about advising employers on how to comply with the law? That's what law firms do. Is legal immigration only "legal" and justified when it meets your standards? Most of those aliens were already working in the U.S., but were seeking an adjustment of status--the "Green Card" that would give them a "benefit" over their competitors and allow "them", in two or three generations, to petition to keep someone else out.
If you find nothing unethical with a company seeking the assistance of a law firm to “legally exclude U.S. citizens from their workforce” in favor of “cheap” foreign labor, obviously integrity is not your strong suit. Funny, the video has been deleted. Apparently ‘someone’ considered it incriminating.

I won’t even waste my time responding to the remainder of your diatribe. You appear to be a man on a “mission.” Enjoy your profits!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 08:52 PM
 
77 posts, read 101,366 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocexpo View Post
La Raza will always view me, and many others in this forum as racist. The more we let it enrage us, the more we feed into their taunting speech.

This about it, that whole video was a big lie. Those people aren't racist, they just oppose illegal immigrant rights. I can just as much call an organization called THE RACE a racist group.

If we started a group called LA RAZA BLANCA (the white race) I am sure they would disown us for being white supremacist, even though this group is clearly latino supremacist. Its just the way they operate because they know that what the illegal aliens are doing is wrong.
I know. It's the New York Latino lobby that (because they want to blur the line between English and lesser languages) is forcing the state legislature to approve Russian-language voter materials, even though every native Russian-speaker is racially white. This is obviously a conspiracy to undermine our values and sap and contaminate our precious bodily fluids. We must send mass e-mails to stop the takeover by non-white Rus--never mind.

"Those people" from the linked video are anti-immigration. FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA are not "anti-illegals". Stretching the argument that anyone that uses their reports, Lou Dobbs, CNN, CNN, web site advertisers, or what have you are "racist" or anti-immigrant (FAIR, CIS, Numbers, et al), or anti-Catholic, or anti-Hispanic just because Tanton is (he is) is too much of a stretch.

The rest of your us's and them's and we's and they's were barely intelligible. Is "La Raza" NCLR, or is it whomever causes you your apparent distress?

Start your "white people" group. David Duke ruined the brand. That's not PC, that's reality, and that's where the "blame" lies (unless you want to blame the "victim"). Any "white people" group would be a magnet for people the leadership (assuming the recent past holds) would be running away from whenever they hustled for funding. Although some might welcome a "white people" group that wants to end disparities in outcome, (life expectancy? asset accumulation? annual income? educational attainment? which disparity did you want work on first?) the sort that demands that these disparities persist are--so sorry--not welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 09:07 PM
 
77 posts, read 101,366 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
If you find nothing unethical with a company seeking the assistance of a law firm to “legally exclude U.S. citizens from their workforce” in favor of “cheap” foreign labor, obviously integrity is not your strong suit. Funny, the video has been deleted. Apparently ‘someone’ considered it incriminating.

I won’t even waste my time responding to the remainder of your diatribe. You appear to be a man on a “mission.” Enjoy your profits!
I watched a five minute Youtube video on it. Is that what you're talking about? It was edited by the head of the "Programmers Guild", completely opposed to legal IT immigration. It was, apparently deleted TODAY. I watched it today and it was deleted between this post and my last (to you). I assure you I don't have that kind of pull, and you can check whatever logs and records you like. Ned does not control the internet.

Legal ethics in Pennsylvania is a matter for the PA Bar. They undoubtedly received hundreds (at least) of complaints. Those complaints were without merit.

If that's the debate you wanted to have. Fine by me. I certainly will enjoy my profits. You enjoy likewise--or lack thereof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 09:32 PM
 
77 posts, read 101,366 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
If you find nothing unethical with a company seeking the assistance of a law firm to “legally exclude U.S. citizens from their workforce” in favor of “cheap” foreign labor, ...
That adverb again, Benicar? What was it that you opposed? Someone telling you that you don't make immigration law?

I'll light a candle for you. And your suffering. I'll light my Cuban with it, instead of the $100 bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,850,945 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by NibblingNed View Post
I watched a five minute Youtube video on it. Is that what you're talking about? It was edited by the head of the "Programmers Guild", completely opposed to legal IT immigration. It was, apparently deleted TODAY. I watched it today and it was deleted between this post and my last (to you). I assure you I don't have that kind of pull, and you can check whatever logs and records you like. Ned does not control the internet.

Legal ethics in Pennsylvania is a matter for the PA Bar. They undoubtedly received hundreds (at least) of complaints. Those complaints were without merit.

If that's the debate you wanted to have. Fine by me. I certainly will enjoy my profits. You enjoy likewise--or lack thereof.
Ned, your delusions of grandeur are unhealthy. I certainly was not alluding to YOU as being responsible for the deletion of the video. To my knowledge, it was deleted months ago.

In any case, I have absolutely nothing else to discuss with you. To be perfectly honest, you appear to be a troll; and your insults and condescension add nothing to the debate. Ignore me, and I’ll ignore you.
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