Anti-illegal immigration is NOT anti-immigration (visa, education, solution, work)
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.
Spin it anyway you want, but you can't deny that they have anti-immigrant positions.
There is a difference between illegal immigrant and legal immigrant. There will always be a clear distinction between the two. The key words being "legal" i.e., working within the law; and "illegal" i.e., working against the law.
Period. There's no other way to spin it.
To claim that people who are against illegal immigration are anti-immigrant is a complete lie. Unless you want to make the claim that all immigrants are here illegally. Or that the United States does not have immigration laws to break.
There is a difference between illegal immigrant and legal immigrant. There will always be a clear distinction between the two. The key words being "legal" i.e., working within the law; and "illegal" i.e., working against the law.
Period. There's no other way to spin it.
To claim that people who are against illegal immigration are anti-immigrant is a complete lie. Unless you want to make the claim that all immigrants are here illegally. Or that the United States does not have immigration laws to break.
Have you read the numbersUsa website? They and other groups like them are against all forms of LEGAL immigration . They oppose H1-b visas, family reunification, green card lottery etc. I dare you to name one way immigrants use to come to the U.S legally that they support.
Have you read the numbersUsa website? They and other groups like them are against all forms of LEGAL immigration . They oppose H1-b visas, family reunification, green card lottery etc. I dare you to name one way immigrants use to come to the U.S legally that they support.
At some point (I don't know if we are there yet) we are going to have to cap immigration completely. We won't have enough food or water to feed everyone here. At replacement levels we will need to be very picky about who gets in. Obviously we can't let the current stream of peasants in when that saturation point hits.
At some point (I don't know if we are there yet) we are going to have to cap immigration completely. We won't have enough food or water to feed everyone here. At replacement levels we will need to be very picky about who gets in. Obviously we can't let the current stream of peasants in when that saturation point hits.
I think that is a lot of the theme on that site.
You are correct, but to oppose immigration based on this or other factors is to be anti-immigration. NumbersUSA is against immigration, they have their reasons, and some of us disagree with them.
So with their stance in judiciary committees and their website, saying that they are not anti-immigration is incorrect.
Again, they are anti-immigration, and they have their reasons.
You are correct, but to oppose immigration based on this or other factors is to be anti-immigration. NumbersUSA is against immigration, they have their reasons, and some of us disagree with them.
So with their stance in judiciary committees and their website, saying that they are not anti-immigration is incorrect.
Again, they are anti-immigration, and they have their reasons.
I disagree. What many call anti immigration is simply setting a higher standard for who we allow to immigrate to our country. I myself married to a legal immigrant am all for this. We should set high standards.
We do not need any more dead weight. Do we need to allow people to old to work and with no needed skills to enter? People who can not support themselves? No we do not.
Do we need to grant a VISA to people who have nothing to contribute? No we don't.
Feeling this way does not make someone anti-immigration.
What it does make someone is a foward thinker. WE don't need to increase our social burden we need to make it smaller.
I disagree. What many call anti immigration is simply setting a higher standard for who we allow to immigrate to our country. I myself married to a legal immigrant am all for this. We should set high standards.
We do not need any more dead weight. Do we need to allow people to old to work and with no needed skills to enter? People who can not support themselves? No we do not.
Do we need to grant a VISA to people who have nothing to contribute? No we don't.
Feeling this way does not make someone anti-immigration.
What it does make someone is a foward thinker. WE don't need to increase our social burden we need to make it smaller.
I agree with you that the bar should be set and measures should be set in place to attract people with high potential.
But again, some people are in favour of reducing quotas and terminating programs that act as pathways for these individuals to migrate. Just like with anything else, anti/pro-immigration are the extremes and most people would fall somewhere in the middle.
Does your way make you more/less of a forward thinker than someone who does not agree with you, I don't think so. It is just a different way of thinking. Someone could argue that bringing people who cannot support themselves would be fine as long as the sponsor bringing them here is fully responsible for their support. For example, my grand parents are at an age where I would rather have them not work at all, they are not financially independent due to their live choices and circumstances, but I have the means to care for them. So I do not see anything wrong with sponsoring them and being personally responsible for all their expenses. If enough people would do that, it would also create/sustain a market for the goods and services that they require and I am able to afford that would otherwise not exist.
Now, also, how do you define people who has nothing to contribute. How would you judge the potential of a kid who just finished high school. Would they be allowed to contribute? I think it would depend on the choices that the kid makes once he is here, but you cannot evaluate it a priori.
I agree with you that we do not any more dead weight. But I think limiting the number of individuals that can come in is the right approach. I think that removing the driving factor that motivates dead weight to come is the right approach. As some people have said, a country with lax immigration rules and a welfare culture cannot succeed. But I do not think that tightening the immigration rules is the right solution, I think reducing the welfare culture is the right approach. If dead-weights are not going to be able to survive due to the lack of social programs, then they are going to go away.
I am a strong supporter of social programs that target kids, (Kids meaning, from Birth-to-the point you finish your education before you enter the workforce, that be High School, Bachelor's, Masters, Ph.D., Professional Degree). But I think programs like food stamps/subsidized housing/etc. are unnecessary and promote complacency in a welfare class. And I do not think these programs should be available to anyone, even less to immigrants (legal or not).
You are correct, but to oppose immigration based on this or other factors is to be anti-immigration. NumbersUSA is against immigration, they have their reasons, and some of us disagree with them.
So with their stance in judiciary committees and their website, saying that they are not anti-immigration is incorrect.
Again, they are anti-immigration, and they have their reasons.
Nonsense! Our country has immigration laws and they are based on a number of criteria. Does that make us anti-legal immigrant? NumbersUSA holds many of those same views as to why we have to limit legal immigration.
I would be curious as to why you disagree and why you think we should have unlimited legal immigration into our country.
If I pour myself a glass of milk but refuse to continue pouring till the glass overflows does that make me anti-milk?
Nonsense! Our country has immigration laws and they are based on a number of criteria. Does that make us anti-legal immigrant? NumbersUSA holds many of those same views as to why we have to limit legal immigration.
I would be curious as to why you disagree and why you think we should have unlimited legal immigration into our country.
If I pour myself a glass of milk but refuse to continue pouring till the glass overflows does that make me anti-milk?
Limits are not anti/pro legal immigration, they are just that limits. They are the current status. To want to increase the amount of those limits are pro-immigration, the ones who want to decrease them are anti-immigration.
This is the last post I do regarding this issue, I seem to be repeating myself and getting in return nonsensical counterexamples, like the milk one.
If we extrapolate and afford extreme success to either group, someone wanting to reduce immigration levels would halt immigration. Someone who would like to increase it would lead to open borders. Those are the two extremes against people usually are around the middle.
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.
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.
