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 06-03-2009, 08:56 AM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,615,066 times
Reputation: 2983

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
The last "compromise" ended with a flood of poor peasants hearing about the free wealth being tossed every direction from the US Govt. That is how come we now have 20 million Illegals and people whining that we don't let a flood of people that cannot self sustain, enter.

Sure sounds like a great Nation builder, a flood of illiterate, impoverished peasants cast off from other Countries coming with open mouths and hands.

Third World status here we come.
"Third World" seems to be a 'hot button' term, and I've been criticized often for using it...but there IS a 'Third World' mentality, and it is NOT conducive nor compatible with operating a 'voluntary', free, 'First World' society. In the Third World the law is a 'joke', it's arbitrary, unfair, and imposed from above to control those 'below'. Therefore, in the Third World the 'law' gets little respect...(and in fact, it DESERVES little).

The Third World mentality toward the 'law' is basically "I'm going to do WHAT I want, take WHAT I can, and go as FAR as I can....until somebody bigger than me STOPS me by force".

That pretty well sums it up. THAT sort of mindset is completetely incompatible with living in a free society...it INVITES draconian 'crackdowns' and heavy-handed government, because basically it puts 'the authorities' at cross-purposes with 'the little guy'.

In a free society, the "little guy" (all of us) and "the law" (government authority) are SUPPOSED to be 'on the same page'....therefore, our laws have a 'moral dimension', and we don't have to be 'forced' to comply. That's the ONLY way that we can continue to live in freedom. Let's hope it lasts.

Last edited by macmeal; 06-03-2009 at 09:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,622,458 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
"Third World" seems to be a 'hot button' term, and I've been criticized often for using it...but there IS a 'Third World' mentality, and it is NOT conducive nor compatible with operating a 'voluntary', free, 'First World' society. In the Third World the law is a 'joke', it's arbitrary, unfair, and imposed from above to control those 'below'. Therefore, in the Third World the 'law' gets little respect...(and in fact, it DESERVES little).

The Third World mentality toward the 'law' is basically "I'm going to do WHAT I want, take WHAT I can, and go as FAR as I can....until somebody bigger than me STOPS me by force".

That pretty well sums it up. THAT sort of mindset is completetely incompatible with living in a free society...it INVITES draconian 'crackdowns' and heavy-handed government, because basically it puts 'the authorities' at cross-purposes with 'the little guy'.

In a free society, the "little guy" (all of us) and "the law" (government authority) are SUPPOSED to be 'on the same page'....therefore, our laws have a 'moral dimension', and we don't have to be 'forced' to comply. That's the ONLY way that we can continue to live in freedom. Let's hope it lasts.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pay close attention to the color chart---------it is very cut and dried.

First Would societies tend to be levels 4 and 5 whereas Third Worlders are usually @ the lower ones. The tipping point is above Level 3.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:20 PM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,077,957 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
"Third World" seems to be a 'hot button' term, and I've been criticized often for using it...but there IS a 'Third World' mentality, and it is NOT conducive nor compatible with operating a 'voluntary', free, 'First World' society. In the Third World the law is a 'joke', it's arbitrary, unfair, and imposed from above to control those 'below'. Therefore, in the Third World the 'law' gets little respect...(and in fact, it DESERVES little).

The Third World mentality toward the 'law' is basically "I'm going to do WHAT I want, take WHAT I can, and go as FAR as I can....until somebody bigger than me STOPS me by force".

That pretty well sums it up. THAT sort of mindset is completetely incompatible with living in a free society...it INVITES draconian 'crackdowns' and heavy-handed government, because basically it puts 'the authorities' at cross-purposes with 'the little guy'.

In a free society, the "little guy" (all of us) and "the law" (government authority) are SUPPOSED to be 'on the same page'....therefore, our laws have a 'moral dimension', and we don't have to be 'forced' to comply. That's the ONLY way that we can continue to live in freedom. Let's hope it lasts.
Please stop commenting on "Third World mentality", as if there is such a thing...as if a person is fundementally different if they are from a poor region of the world. I personally believe you don't know much about the Third World, as evidenced in this and other posts.

So there are no such things as laws, morals, a sense of society in the Third World? Is it simply the "enlightened" richer nations that are "civilized"?

What about all the factors that come into play in the Third World? It's not as cut and dry as you portray.

I hope for the future of America that we have a better understanding of the politics, history, and economics of what lies outside our borders. I hope we don't rely on stereotypes, anecdotes, and generalizations to form our foreign and immigration policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:31 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,711,508 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Please stop commenting on "Third World mentality", as if there is such a thing...as if a person is fundementally different if they are from a poor region of the world. I personally believe you don't know much about the Third World, as evidenced in this and other posts.

So there are no such things as laws, morals, a sense of society in the Third World? Is it simply the "enlightened" richer nations that are "civilized"?

What about all the factors that come into play in the Third World? It's not as cut and dry as you portray.

I hope for the future of America that we have a better understanding of the politics, history, and economics of what lies outside our borders. I hope we don't rely on stereotypes, anecdotes, and generalizations to form our foreign and immigration policies.

What creates certain behaviors is either race ie genetic (which is what a racist believes) or it's cultural, the way people believe, culture is learned.

The thing is -- the same cultural behaviors that would allow someone to succeed in the USA without living off food stamps, Medicaid, and other government assistance are the same cultural behaviors that would allow them to become middle class in Mexico.

Third world mentality is about people who don't believe much in education, breed at a very young age, and breed far more children than they can support.

Middle class behavior is pretty much the same in the USA as in other countries. Mexico for example as a growing middle class -- the people who keep their kids in school, delay childbearing until they have a basic education and a job, and tend not to have baby after baby that they cannot feed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:54 PM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,077,957 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
What creates certain behaviors is either race ie genetic (which is what a racist believes) or it's cultural, the way people believe, culture is learned.

The thing is -- the same cultural behaviors that would allow someone to succeed in the USA without living off food stamps, Medicaid, and other government assistance are the same cultural behaviors that would allow them to become middle class in Mexico.

Third world mentality is about people who don't believe much in education, breed at a very young age, and breed far more children than they can support.

Middle class behavior is pretty much the same in the USA as in other countries. Mexico for example as a growing middle class -- the people who keep their kids in school, delay childbearing until they have a basic education and a job, and tend not to have baby after baby that they cannot feed.
Again, please don't comment on things you have no clue of... There are more factors at work than simply culture. There are also economic, political, and historical factors that need to be taken into consideration.

If you are in extreme poverty, you will actually BENEFIT from having more children. More children means more help in the fields, means more food to sell, means more food on the table. Less children means a smaller safety net in old age. Less children means less people making money to take care of you.

Education is obviously streseed in the Third World, but money is diverted away from the poor. Both the poor and the rich want an education, however, the rich are the ones that have the resources to obtain one.

Since we don't live in an agrarian society, more children is ADVERSE to survival. It means less of a payout and more of a liability (we don't need extra farm hands...we have an industrial farming society).

So you see, the number of children is highly related to the economic class in which you reside in. The extreme poor need more children, whereas the global elite (meaning middle class and up) don't need as many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:55 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,415,357 times
Reputation: 47455
that is like a home invasion and both sides negotiating who gets to stay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 11:04 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,711,508 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Again, please don't comment on things you have no clue of... There are more factors at work than simply culture. There are also economic, political, and historical factors that need to be taken into consideration.

If you are in extreme poverty, you will actually BENEFIT from having more children. More children means more help in the fields, means more food to sell, means more food on the table. Less children means a smaller safety net in old age. Less children means less people making money to take care of you.

Education is obviously streseed in the Third World, but money is diverted away from the poor. Both the poor and the rich want an education, however, the rich are the ones that have the resources to obtain one.

Since we don't live in an agrarian society, more children is ADVERSE to survival. It means less of a payout and more of a liability (we don't need extra farm hands...we have an industrial farming society).

So you see, the number of children is highly related to the economic class in which you reside in. The extreme poor need more children, whereas the global elite (meaning middle class and up) don't need as many.
Those are all cultural attitudes and of course personal poor choices.

Having more children than you can feed does not make you richer. You may believe your children can be sent out begging a living that you can steal from them rather than be educated and stay in school but no one with half a brain believes that trying to feed 14 or 16 children is easier than trying to feed 4 or 5.

It's cultural to believe that your children owe you a living and must be your caretakers when you get old. We have the cultural attitude -- as do most middle class types, that we must save and plan for our retirement years, we don't give birth expecting our children must act as our nursemaids and free nursing home providers.

Even in poor countries, books are available, but all too often you see homes with 12-14 children and not a book to be found anywhere. Lottery tickets and beer however can be found.

We don't live in an agrarian society and of course Mexico hasn't been that for some time either. 80% of Mexicans live in urban settings.

In fact Mexicans in Mexico are not having the large families that the welfare class of Mexicans in the USA are having. Welfare is what rewards people for having children they cannot support. The birth rate of illegals in the USA is considerably higher than the birth rate in Mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 12:01 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,077,957 times
Reputation: 822
Those are all cultural attitudes and of course personal poor choices.

Again, no...it's not. There are A LOT of factors, economics being the main one.

Having more children than you can feed does not make you richer. You may believe your children can be sent out begging a living that you can steal from them rather than be educated and stay in school but no one with half a brain believes that trying to feed 14 or 16 children is easier than trying to feed 4 or 5.

If you have a farm, can you harvest more food with 2 kids or 4 kids? Obviously 4, since there are more people. More people, greater harvest. This is why in Africa, the poorest of the poor are those with no family in rural regions.

It's cultural to believe that your children owe you a living and must be your caretakers when you get old. We have the cultural attitude -- as do most middle class types, that we must save and plan for our retirement years, we don't give birth expecting our children must act as our nursemaids and free nursing home providers.

There are no support systems outside of family in poorer regions. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT THE US. We have stocks, bonds, pension funds...they don't. They have children. This is their version of a pension fund. Kids are the ONLY way to ensure you can continue to live well once you are too old to work.

Even in poor countries, books are available, but all too often you see homes with 12-14 children and not a book to be found anywhere. Lottery tickets and beer however can be found.

No there are not. Trust me on this. I've been to the poorest regions in the world. Lottery tickets? What are you talking about?

We don't live in an agrarian society and of course Mexico hasn't been that for some time either. 80% of Mexicans live in urban settings.

People were generalizing third world. Most of the third world is agrarian. Fine, Mexico is majority urban. However, in all third world countries the same rules apply (more kids = more work potential, not too much money for non-essentials).

In fact Mexicans in Mexico are not having the large families that the welfare class of Mexicans in the USA are having. Welfare is what rewards people for having children they cannot support. The birth rate of illegals in the USA is considerably higher than the birth rate in Mexico.

Again, those that can "afford" not having large families. The extreme urban an rural poor can't afford the luxury of having a VERY tiny family. This means less income coming in. In a society of acquired wealth, more children means more distribution of wealth. In poor regions of little acquired wealth, you are in the process of trying to build wealth (here we are trying to maintain wealth). I understand you don't have a great understanding of outside the US, specifically poorer regions...but don't post as if they (those from the Third World) have no clue on how to live life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 06:55 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,711,508 times
Reputation: 22158
Even if you're claiming that the people who begin having children at 13 or 14 years of age or decide to have a baby every year that they can't support have sat down and reasoned that eventually these babies will be old enough to do some kind of manual labor and bring in the big bucks, or that they have many children because they're planning to have the children support them when they're old, it's a cultural attitude.

It's a cultural attitude that will lead to big problems in this country as it converts to a welfare cultural attitude.

The fact is, that in order to succeed in the USA without the food stamps, the free health care, housing assistance and so on, these same people would have to change their attitudes, their beliefs, their culture. They'd have to do the same things that if they did back home, they would succeed.

Right now in Mexico if someone stays in school, including the government provided public schools, works hard, doesn't begin having babies at age 14 or 15, waits until they've completed an education, and job skills, and a job, and a marriage partner, and has only the number of children they can feed and clothe, that person will be middle class.

The problem with cultural attitudes is that is what leads to third world poverty. Girls having babies at age 13 -- whether or not they do because they're planning for their retirement now, having babies they hope will take care of them or some 30 year old woman having her 12th child with a man who can never find a job and they're planning to get a farm someday, it's still cultural mindsets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,622,458 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Again, please don't comment on things you have no clue of... There are more factors at work than simply culture. There are also economic, political, and historical factors that need to be taken into consideration.

If you are in extreme poverty, you will actually BENEFIT from having more children. More children means more help in the fields, means more food to sell, means more food on the table. Less children means a smaller safety net in old age. Less children means less people making money to take care of you.

Education is obviously streseed in the Third World, but money is diverted away from the poor. Both the poor and the rich want an education, however, the rich are the ones that have the resources to obtain one.

Since we don't live in an agrarian society, more children is ADVERSE to survival. It means less of a payout and more of a liability (we don't need extra farm hands...we have an industrial farming society).

So you see, the number of children is highly related to the economic class in which you reside in. The extreme poor need more children, whereas the global elite (meaning middle class and up) don't need as many.
BOTTOM LINE HERE:

We (the USA) owe cultures that you described NOTHING.

Either the above Third World societies change or they need to die out----------literally.
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