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.
Evidently you don't know the difference between legal immigrants, citizens and illegal aliens. Or you do and you just don't care. No one is an American unless they were born or naturalized here. That eliminates both legal immigrants and illegal aliens from that category. It really has to be explained to you why immigration laws are good for the citizens of any country?
Oh yeah, I wanted to address this too.
Quote:
Evidently you don't know the difference between legal immigrants, citizens and illegal aliens. Or you do and you just don't care.
1) No, I don't care. They are all people. Your arbitrary distinctions do not change that.
Quote:
No one is an American unless they were born or naturalized here. That eliminates both legal immigrants and illegal aliens from that category.
2) Sorry to burst your bubble, but even under YOUR definition, legal immigrants ARE "American"
Quote:
It really has to be explained to you why immigration laws are good for the citizens of any country?
3) Yes, because I fail to see how it is good to keep people separated by arbitrary laws solely based on where you happened to be born.
I know what you are getting at, that we need laws to "protect American jobs" but this makes absolutely zero sense considering that we are talking about people who would be moving here to work those jobs. That means they would be Americans who are working "American jobs" - so what is the problem? Just that their names might be Jose or Mohammed instead of William? oh no Again, that's just being racist - you want white Willy to have the job only because he's white and "like you". How is that NOT racist? Otherwise, why do you care who does the work as long as it gets done?
Just because "everyone is doing it", doesn't make it right. You could have made the same argument for slavery 200 years ago... "every nation on earth has slavery for a reason". And? Doesn't mean they are right.
Why should a country's "needs" come above the rights of individuals? How does that make any sense?
Also, since when are rights and laws based on "needs"?
Do you NEED to drink soda? Do you NEED to have cable TV? Do you NEED to have cats or dogs for pets? NO. So should those things be illegal then, since they aren't "needed"? Obviously not. So you can drop the 'needs' argument right there.
Laws should always be based on rights, not needs.
But, backing up, why does the country "not need 100,00 new people"? Oh right, because the unsustainable welfare system will implode on itself. Again, that is not immigration's problem, it is the welfare system's problem.
Also, I never said that everyone should have to learn every new language, etc. but when a critical mass is reached then it only it makes sense to incorporate those people into the society as a whole. Many of you are under the false impression that culture is static. It's not. If millions of Spanish speakers are living here, then guess what, we are a Spanish speaking country. Therefore, we should have signs in Spanish to accommodate all of the AMERICANS who speak Spanish. ¿Comprende?
What about the right of a nation to determine who is worthy?
Critical mass? Who determines this?
Unlimited immigration until what point? Resources are finite and limited.
Of course laws are designed based on need as well as rights.. That said what specific right does say someone from ireland have to immigrate to the USA? They are certainly allowed to apply for a VISA but their is no right that guarantees a VISA.
Should we also grant Unlimited immigration to violent criminals? Your word UNLIMITED that means no limt no restriction.
It's only illegal because some law says it is. Would you also blindly support any law against anything? "No growing your own tomatoes" - oh, well, it's the law. Growing tomatoes is illegal, therefore bad. Why don't you ask: "WHY is it illegal?"
If there was no law saying that immigration was "illegal" for certain people, would you still support treating them as they are currently treated?
Uh; ALL countries have laws against ILLEGAL aliens being there, even Mexico. Legal aliens are a different thing.
1) No, I don't care. They are all people. Your arbitrary distinctions do not change that.
2) Sorry to burst your bubble, but even under YOUR definition, legal immigrants ARE "American"
3) Yes, because I fail to see how it is good to keep people separated by arbitrary laws solely based on where you happened to be born.
I know what you are getting at, that we need laws to "protect American jobs" but this makes absolutely zero sense considering that we are talking about people who would be moving here to work those jobs. That means they would be Americans who are working "American jobs" - so what is the problem? Just that their names might be Jose or Mohammed instead of William? oh no Again, that's just being racist - you want white Willy to have the job only because he's white and "like you". How is that NOT racist? Otherwise, why do you care who does the work as long as it gets done?
Legal aliens ain't "American". An American; either born or naturalized here with no other word in front of it means a citizen of the US only. Sheesh!
Legal aliens ain't "American". An American; either born or naturalized here with no other word in front of it means a citizen of the US only. Sheesh!
Not only that but the claims of racism are ludicrous. U.S. citizens are already comprised of people of all races and ethnic backgrounds. Why would anyone have a problem with those "citizens" holding jobs in this country based on their race? I certainly don't. All "citizens" have a right to work in this country. I don't care what race or ethnicity a citizen is nor do I put white Americans above them. We still allow in 1 million legal immigrants per year and hardly any of them are white so where is the racism?
There are 2 billion impoverished across the world. We cannot allow them all into our country or we would be committing national suicide. We do not have the ariable land space, jobs and resources to accommodate them all. Not even close! Why is that these people think that only the U.S. should be the flop house and employment agency to the whole world? There is no where else to migrate to?
Prove that "immigration laws = good". I'm pretty sure I showed the opposite, immigration laws are bad.
"Foreigner" is a convenient term to use, but it's not accurate. If someone has moved somewhere (or wants to move somewhere) then guess what, they are no longer a "foreigner". So you are wrong again. You say "if millions of foreigners are residing here..." do you know what "residing" means? It means that is where they now live. In this sense, they aren't foreigners, they are Americans. So how are you going to compare needs when you make this realization? "One American's needs vs another American's needs" isn't quite as simple, is it?
Also, how exactly are the needs conflicting? Most people have the same needs (food, shelter, etc.) - how is allowing someone new to live next to you conflicting with any of your needs? Clearly it is not a concern for resources because you would happily allow someone from New York or Oregon to live next to you, so why not someone from Mexico or Liberia? The only conclusion I can draw is that you are a racist, in which case, it doesn't matter what you think because making policies based on racism is never a good idea.
Finally, you are wrong again - the United States does not have a "national language". Most signs are in English because it is generally accepted that MOST people speak English, but if there are sections of the country where most (or at least more) Americans speak Spanish, then it only makes sense to have signs in that language too.
You didnt show that Immigration laws are bad. You showed that you don't believe in immigration laws.
You define words to fit your argument and disregard the actual meaning.
What is a foreign national?
By your definition any diplomat from another country who just happens to be residing within the borders of a host nation say the USA is now an american. Absolutely your definition is inaccurate and in fact wrong.
Resources. You unlimited immigration ideas would absolutely overwhelm our resources. Your analogy of a New Yorker v.s a Liberian is also flawed unless you are assuming that the Liberian is finically stable, able to communicate in the common language and has no need for financial aid.
Why should any nation assume additional burden? Why should a nations immigration laws place the needs of the applicant above the needs of its own citizens?
Do you welcome strangers into your own home assume responsibility to feed them, cloth them, provide medical care and education for them and their children? That is what you are saying our country should do but on a grand scale.
You say immigrants needing welfare isn't an immigration problem. It is when you allow immigrants in the country who can't support themselves.
You never answered about allowing violent criminals into the country. You said unlimited immigration. That means no limits, no restrictions. Do you want a known convicted rapist, pedophile, serial killer or drug dealer living next door to you? I know I don't.
Why should the citizens of this nation assume the financial burden of providing for an unlimited number of unskilled and uneducated immigrants? The standard of living in this nation would not last long considering the tax burden that would be required to support a mass migration of the unskilled and destitute.
You didnt show that Immigration laws are bad. You showed that you don't believe in immigration laws.
You define words to fit your argument and disregard the actual meaning.
What is a foreign national?
By your definition any diplomat from another country who just happens to be residing within the borders of a host nation say the USA is now an american. Absolutely your definition is inaccurate and in fact wrong.
Fair enough, but that is a very specific case of someone who is here only because he is representing the interests of another country (aka he is just "visiting", except for a long period of time). However, generally anyone else who isn't a diplomat is "residing" in the place they intend to live, which means they are just as "local" as anyone else.
Quote:
Resources. You unlimited immigration ideas would absolutely overwhelm our resources. Your analogy of a New Yorker v.s a Liberian is also flawed unless you are assuming that the Liberian is finically stable, able to communicate in the common language and has no need for financial aid.
You are the one assuming the New Yorker is financially stable and has no need for financial aid. How can you make such an assumption? And if the New Yorker is NOT financially stable then what? Deport him too? Is that the argument you are trying to make, that we should kick all poor people out of the country? That is a bit different than immigration, that has more to do with welfare than anything else.
Also, last I checked, someone who is financially UNSTABLE seems to be able to move anywhere they want within the country without regard to their finances. So, how is this different than someone from elsewhere (Liberia, in this example)? I fail to see a distinction other than the poor New Yorker happened to have been born here and the poor Liberian was not. That hardly seems relevant considering NEITHER is "local" to your neck of the woods.
So why do you welcome the "financially unstable" New Yorker then? You can't give a straight answer without revealing how poor your logic is. But please try.
Quote:
Why should any nation assume additional burden? Why should a nations immigration laws place the needs of the applicant above the needs of its own citizens?
Well, besides the fact (as already mentioned on the last page) that "needs" is a terrible thing to base laws on, how about this? Because a "nation" is a made up entity and an "applicant" is a real person. It seems if we are going off of "needs" that you would favor the real thing instead of a concept that has been made up, right?
Quote:
Do you welcome strangers into your own home assume responsibility to feed them, cloth them, provide medical care and education for them and their children? That is what you are saying our country should do but on a grand scale.
That's the thing, it's not the same thing. Your home is in a small location and there are lots of other homes around you. What gives you the right to decide who your neighbors are, or what your neighbors can do?
Quote:
You say immigrants needing welfare isn't an immigration problem. It is when you allow immigrants in the country who can't support themselves.
Again, what is the difference between someone who can't support themselves coming here and someone who can't support themselves already being here? If you think there are too many people who "can't support themselves" then you have to figure out why they can't support themselves and address that issue (aka, fix the welfare system). Hint: the answer isn't to simply "kick out all the poor people" like you seem to think (no, that's not what you specifically said, but that is your logic: don't let poor people come here = don't let poor people live here).
Quote:
You never answered about allowing violent criminals into the country. You said unlimited immigration. That means no limits, no restrictions. Do you want a known convicted rapist, pedophile, serial killer or drug dealer living next door to you? I know I don't.
I didn't notice that comment, and maybe because it's so insignificant to not matter. How many "serial killers" even exist in the world, let alone how many of them are likely to even consider living near you? So few that it's not even worth thinking about.
And you know what, that's what laws are for - not to give (or hurt) people based on "needs" of someone else, but to ensure everyone gets along peacefully. If someone does want to rape people, then they will be held accountable for that action and taken off the streets quickly. So I don't see what your concern is. ANYONE that lives next to you could potentially commit a crime. That's the point of having police and laws and whatnot - if someone does commit a crime, then they are dealt with accordingly.
If they have been convicted, then how are they out of prison? I guess that means they have been determined to have served their time and have been released. So, again, what is the problem? If the police and courts think that it's okay to let this person back onto the streets, who are you to say he can't live near you? If your issue is with people being released, then again that is a completely different issue (an issue with the laws and prison system - NOT with immigration).
Quote:
Why should the citizens of this nation assume the financial burden of providing for an unlimited number of unskilled and uneducated immigrants? The standard of living in this nation would not last long considering the tax burden that would be required to support a mass migration of the unskilled and destitute.
They shouldn't. That's the point. The welfare system is too big and completely unsustainable. It needs to be "reeled in". People like you show that with this exact argument, because you clearly KNOW that it won't hold up with many more people added to it.
We just have different ideas about what that means I guess. You think we need to keep people out so that we can keep it going with the few people who were lucky enough to make it inside the bubble... but I think we should go ahead and let them in and let the system collapse on itself so that we can go back to a truly free market where people are able to support themselves by living/working where ever they want and goods and services are worth what the market determines, not what "prices need to be" in order to keep this ridiculous system from toppling over onto itself (which it is going to do anyways, your way just delays it and makes everything worse in the meantime).
Again, where is the logic that it's okay to help poor people who were born in Arizona, but it's not okay to help poor people who were born 60 miles away, in Mexico? That is **** logic, any way you look at it.
Fair enough, but that is a very specific case of someone who is here only because he is representing the interests of another country (aka he is just "visiting", except for a long period of time). However, generally anyone else who isn't a diplomat is "residing" in the place they intend to live, which means they are just as "local" as anyone else.
You are the one assuming the New Yorker is financially stable and has no need for financial aid. How can you make such an assumption? And if the New Yorker is NOT financially stable then what? Deport him too? Is that the argument you are trying to make, that we should kick all poor people out of the country? That is a bit different than immigration, that has more to do with welfare than anything else.
Also, last I checked, someone who is financially UNSTABLE seems to be able to move anywhere they want within the country without regard to their finances. So, how is this different than someone from elsewhere (Liberia, in this example)? I fail to see a distinction other than the poor New Yorker happened to have been born here and the poor Liberian was not. That hardly seems relevant considering NEITHER is "local" to your neck of the woods.
So why do you welcome the "financially unstable" New Yorker then? You can't give a straight answer without revealing how poor your logic is. But please try.
Well, besides the fact (as already mentioned on the last page) that "needs" is a terrible thing to base laws on, how about this? Because a "nation" is a made up entity and an "applicant" is a real person. It seems if we are going off of "needs" that you would favor the real thing instead of a concept that has been made up, right?
That's the thing, it's not the same thing. Your home is in a small location and there are lots of other homes around you. What gives you the right to decide who your neighbors are, or what your neighbors can do?
Again, what is the difference between someone who can't support themselves coming here and someone who can't support themselves already being here? If you think there are too many people who "can't support themselves" then you have to figure out why they can't support themselves and address that issue (aka, fix the welfare system). Hint: the answer isn't to simply "kick out all the poor people" like you seem to think (no, that's not what you specifically said, but that is your logic: don't let poor people come here = don't let poor people live here).
I didn't notice that comment, and maybe because it's so insignificant to not matter. How many "serial killers" even exist in the world, let alone how many of them are likely to even consider living near you? So few that it's not even worth thinking about.
And you know what, that's what laws are for - not to give (or hurt) people based on "needs" of someone else, but to ensure everyone gets along peacefully. If someone does want to rape people, then they will be held accountable for that action and taken off the streets quickly. So I don't see what your concern is. ANYONE that lives next to you could potentially commit a crime. That's the point of having police and laws and whatnot - if someone does commit a crime, then they are dealt with accordingly.
If they have been convicted, then how are they out of prison? I guess that means they have been determined to have served their time and have been released. So, again, what is the problem? If the police and courts think that it's okay to let this person back onto the streets, who are you to say he can't live near you? If your issue is with people being released, then again that is a completely different issue (an issue with the laws and prison system - NOT with immigration).
They shouldn't. That's the point. The welfare system is too big and completely unsustainable. It needs to be "reeled in". People like you show that with this exact argument, because you clearly KNOW that it won't hold up with many more people added to it.
We just have different ideas about what that means I guess. You think we need to keep people out so that we can keep it going with the few people who were lucky enough to make it inside the bubble... but I think we should go ahead and let them in and let the system collapse on itself so that we can go back to a truly free market where people are able to support themselves by living/working where ever they want and goods and services are worth what the market determines, not what "prices need to be" in order to keep this ridiculous system from toppling over onto itself (which it is going to do anyways, your way just delays it and makes everything worse in the meantime).
Again, where is the logic that it's okay to help poor people who were born in Arizona, but it's not okay to help poor people who were born 60 miles away, in Mexico? That is **** logic, any way you look at it.
Your house is smaller so it isn't right that you should have to assume the burden of others. I agree, I also agree that it is your home and you have the right to decide who may enter and dwell within your home. A Country is big and our government has a responsibility to protect the interests of our own citizens. That includes filtering who may enter and stay.
You say that criminals are a none issue and yet our prisons seemed to be filled with illegals who have committed violent crimes.
The excuse that we have our own criminals already. Your correct we do. So why add to that number?
Let the system collapse? At whose expense and for what reason? A social experiment? Long before the collapse those who are actually paying taxes will be taxed into the poor house to support your mass migration.
Why should a nation dictate who is acceptable? #1 because international law says that we can. #2 because a nations governments primary concern should be for what is best for its own citizens. Not unlike the head of a household.
To be honest I am not at all concerned with how bad life is in Liberia, Somalia or haiti. My concern is for my own Nation. Unlimited immigration doesn't support, improve make this nation a better place. Controled immigration does. I am married to a legal immigrant. She speaks 5 languages, college educated and is not one of 47% on the take from the fed.
As for the financial ability of a New Yorker v.s an immigrant. Not unlike if it is your own kid that needs help at least it's your kid you are helping. The Newyorker is one of us. The immigrant applicant is not. At least not yet. This nation can not afford to add to our burden. As you pointed out it is already too great.
Your house is smaller so it isn't right that you should have to assume the burden of others. I agree, I also agree that it is your home and you have the right to decide who may enter and dwell within your home. A Country is big and our government has a responsibility to protect the interests of our own citizens. That includes filtering who may enter and stay.
You say that criminals are a none issue and yet our prisons seemed to be filled with illegals who have committed violent crimes.
The excuse that we have our own criminals already. Your correct we do. So why add to that number?
Let the system collapse? At whose expense and for what reason? A social experiment? Long before the collapse those who are actually paying taxes will be taxed into the poor house to support your mass migration.
Why should a nation dictate who is acceptable? #1 because international law says that we can. #2 because a nations governments primary concern should be for what is best for its own citizens. Not unlike the head of a household.
To be honest I am not at all concerned with how bad life is in Liberia, Somalia or haiti. My concern is for my own Nation. Unlimited immigration doesn't support, improve make this nation a better place. Controled immigration does. I am married to a legal immigrant. She speaks 5 languages, college educated and is not one of 47% on the take from the fed.
As for the financial ability of a New Yorker v.s an immigrant. Not unlike if it is your own kid that needs help at least it's your kid you are helping. The Newyorker is one of us. The immigrant applicant is not. At least not yet. This nation can not afford to add to our burden. As you pointed out it is already too great.
You know I went to go check on that 47% and this is what i found
So there is some basis for the 40 percent figure. However, it’s important to keep two bits of context in mind:
• This statistic addresses households headed by an illegal immigrant. However, many of these households include American citizens within the family, often children who were born in the United States and who received citizenship at birth. Indeed, given the web of restrictions on the granting of government benefits to illegal immigrants, most of the "welfare" benefits being counted in the CIS table are going to citizen children, not to adult illegal immigrants. Indeed, the government is responsible for checking the immigration status of people receiving benefits.
It’s true that some types of benefits, such as food stamps, can be shared among all members of a family. An illegal immigrant, for instance, may end up eating food bought with a citizen relative’s food stamps. Still, the Facebook post’s phrasing -- that 41 percent of illegal immigrants are on welfare -- is misleading because it ignores that the benefits in question are generally going to American citizens.
• We suspect that when many people hear the term "welfare," they think of cash benefits. However, very little cash assistance is going to illegal immigrants. According to CIS, less than 1 percent of illegal-immigrant-headed households included anyone receiving direct government cash assistance, such as Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or state-run cash aid. This is not surprising: Illegal immigrants are generally barred from receiving such payments.
Instead, the kind of "welfare" these households received were primarily one of two types: health care or food.
In all, 27 percent of such households received coverage from Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, while 33 percent received food assistance, such as free or reduced-price school lunches, food stamps, or benefits from the Women-Infants-Children program (WIC). As noted earlier, many of the recipients of these programs were actually citizen children of illegal immigrants. Few illegal immigrants received housing benefits, the other major category of assistance from the government, CIS found.
Medicaid and food assistance certainly qualify as government benefits, and they cost the taxpayers money. But it’s less clear that they fit the commonly understood definition of "welfare."
Our ruling
The Facebook post’s first claim, that "less than 2 percent of illegals are picking crops," is close to correct. The post’s second claim, that "41 percent (of illegal immigrants) are on welfare" is misleading. Most of the "welfare" benefits in question are going to U.S. citizens who live in illegal immigrant households, not directly to illegal immigrants, and very little of it comes in cash form, which is the traditional definition of "welfare." On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.
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.
Why don't you ask: "WHY is it illegal?"
