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.
How is it fair to others that Hispanics will by far benefit from an amnesty? If 25-30% of illegals are non-hispanic then that means that approximately 75% of them are Hispanic.
We reached the ideal carrying capacity of the U.S. at around 200 million. We are well past that. Try reading susps.org. Of course you will probably say it is a biased source because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Smaller economy, smaller population. That is what will keep our country healthier in the long run. Money isn't everything.
Because if there were an amnesty program it would be regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. So it would be fair...since it does not exclude anyone.
Wow, Malthus...so you actually know the carrying capacity of the US? No, I won't say it's biased, but rather that the Sierra Club is probably not the best determing carrying capacity. The truth of the matter is that we don't know what the carrying capacity is (if any) of the US. There are too many variables to try to even determine this.
So by shrinking the economy and limiting production is the best to keep our economy going? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...
Because if there were an amnesty program it would be regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. So it would be fair...since it does not exclude anyone.
Wow, Malthus...so you actually know the carrying capacity of the US? No, I won't say it's biased, but rather that the Sierra Club is probably not the best determing carrying capacity. The truth of the matter is that we don't know what the carrying capacity is (if any) of the US. There are too many variables to try to even determine this.
So by shrinking the economy and limiting production is the best to keep our economy going? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...
IF, there were to be an amnesty,and I don't suspect there will, I would hope it would be based upon actual need for the skills provided by the illegal,followed by a complete background check, their ability to provide for themselves and family, including health/ auto insurance,education, with no access to any taxpayer paid benefits whatsoever, registration with the appropiate government agency (ICE) with bi- monthly follow-ups to to ascertain their compliance to the rules and regs, (including arrests for major infractions,etc)... AND, they must have a full time job that makes all of the above possible... I'm sure there more that others can come up with.... then I might consider it....not likely though..those here now have really pissed me off......
no blanket amnesty......period
I wonder who would benefit the most from this......anglo or hispanic illegals...
BL
Last edited by borderlord; 11-10-2009 at 03:38 PM..
Reason: expansion....
Because if there were an amnesty program it would be regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. So it would be fair...since it does not exclude anyone.
Wow, Malthus...so you actually know the carrying capacity of the US? No, I won't say it's biased, but rather that the Sierra Club is probably not the best determing carrying capacity. The truth of the matter is that we don't know what the carrying capacity is (if any) of the US. There are too many variables to try to even determine this.
So by shrinking the economy and limiting production is the best to keep our economy going? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...
Here we go again! An amnesty would be unfair because it would mostly benefit Hispanics regardless that other ethnicities would be included in it. Do the math! It is also unfair for ANY illegal to gain amnesty because of those waiting to do it the right way.
The research done was not done by the Sierra Club. They were merely mentioned because the question was why as environmentalists doesn't the Sierra club condemn illegal immigration? They became PC like so many fools in this country.
We already have shortages of everything in this country that is evident. It is obvious that with more people there will be more consumption, overcrowding and social need's demands.
It does make sense to have a smaller economy to fit a smaller population. There are many successful countries who fit that criteria and their citizenry are a lot happier and healthier. Take off those rose colored glasses and use some common sense here.
IF, there were to be an amnesty,and I don't suspect there will, I would hope it would be based upon actual need for the skills provided by the illegal,followed by a complete background check, their ability to provide for themselves and family, including health/ auto insurance,education, with no access to any taxpayer paid benefits whatsoever, registration with the appropiate government agency (ICE) with bi- monthly follow-ups to to ascertain their compliance to the rules and regs, (including arrests for major infractions,etc)... AND, they must have a full time job that makes all of the above possible... I'm sure there more that others can come up with.... then I might consider it....not likely though..those here now have really pissed me off......
no blanket amnesty......period
I wonder who would benefit the most from this......anglo or hispanic illegals...
BL
I agree there won't be any amnesty but just for the sake of argument I agree with your criteria for qualifying but I would add this. Yes, determine first what our actual foreign labor needs are. Those who have met the criteria and qualifed we should give amnesty to equally by ethnic group. The rest should go home and if there still is a shortage of American workers then pull equally from the ethnic groups still waiting to come here and can qualify by the same criteria. Sounds fair to me!
IF, there were to be an amnesty,and I don't suspect there will, I would hope it would be based upon actual need for the skills provided by the illegal,followed by a complete background check, their ability to provide for themselves and family, including health/ auto insurance,education, with no access to any taxpayer paid benefits whatsoever, registration with the appropiate government agency (ICE) with bi- monthly follow-ups to to ascertain their compliance to the rules and regs, (including arrests for major infractions,etc)... AND, they must have a full time job that makes all of the above possible... I'm sure there more that others can come up with.... then I might consider it....not likely though..those here now have really pissed me off......
no blanket amnesty......period
I wonder who would benefit the most from this......anglo or hispanic illegals...
BL
Okay. On some points I agree...however, why have public services if they don't help the public (meaning no acces to ANY taxpayer paid benefits).
Why the need to have bi-monthly meetings (this just is extra waste). What if they are a student thus can't have a full time job and need a federal loan (taxpayer benefit)?
I think that amnesty should be given to those that are obtaining higher education or worked for x number of years. Those that are below the x number mark would qualify for a guest worker program that acts as a path towards legalization (providing them the ability to learn English, job skills training, and/or college assistance). The whole health insurance requirement and meeting with ICE is a litte much.
Here we go again! An amnesty would be unfair because it would mostly benefit Hispanics regardless that other ethnicities would be included in it. Do the math! It is also unfair for ANY illegal to gain amnesty because of those waiting to do it the right way.
You clearly don't understand. Okay, the majority of people who took advantage for cash for clunkers were White. Is that fair? Yes, there are more White people in the nation. However, all races were allowed to use this program. Do you see what I'm saying? The demographics can't determine fairness, but rather the implementation would determine fairness. Just like in cash for clunkers, though the majority of people were White, it was a fair program since it did not discriminate.
The research done was not done by the Sierra Club. They were merely mentioned because the question was why as environmentalists doesn't the Sierra club condemn illegal immigration? They became PC like so many fools in this country.
The report was for the Sierra Club. They paid for such a study. Thus, their singlular views (of which are unverifiable), were only represented. Again, Malthusian Carrying Capacity is something that is an unknown.
We already have shortages of everything in this country that is evident. It is obvious that with more people there will be more consumption, overcrowding and social need's demands.
No we don't. That's actually far from the truth...We THROW away more things than any other nation in the world. We use more per capita than any other nation. What needs to change is how we can become more efficient. This is one major critique of Malthus...he doesn't account for ingenuity.
It does make sense to have a smaller economy to fit a smaller population. There are many successful countries who fit that criteria and their citizenry are a lot happier and healthier. Take off those rose colored glasses and use some common sense here.
Again, you seemd lost.Yes, there are many small countries that are great. However, we aren't a small country. We simply can't be. We have the third largest population and the single largest economy. Our economic model is one based on expansion. If we have a smaller economy, then we would collapse. Shrinking an economy is the same as a recession or depression. How do you propose a smaller economy? A smaller population means a graying population. Thus, the tax burden would be high and the production per capita would be lower. This is the situation that they are facing in Japan. The tax burden for the young is high, and per capita output is falling (the old don't work as hard as the young). It's not rose colored, it's called being realistic.
[quote=that1guy;11573434]Okay. On some points I agree...however, why have public services if they don't help the public (meaning no acces to ANY taxpayer paid benefits).
Why the need to have bi-monthly meetings (this just is extra waste). What if they are a student thus can't have a full time job and need a federal loan (taxpayer benefit)?
I think that amnesty should be given to those that are obtaining higher education or worked for x number of years. Those that are below the x number mark would qualify for a guest worker program that acts as a path towards legalization (providing them the ability to learn English, job skills training, and/or college assistance). The whole health insurance requirement and meeting with ICE is a litte much.[/quote
"why have public services if they don't help the public"
legal citizens only
Why the need to have bi-monthly meetings (this just is extra waste)
Having documents printed in anything other than english would also seem to be an unnecessary use of taxpayer monies....Lord knows the politicians have a penchant for wasting "our money)
What if they are a student thus can't have a full time job and need a federal loan (taxpayer benefit)?
As stated, either their family covers the cost or they themselves do, not the taxpayers....
The whole health insurance requirement and meeting with ICE is a litte much.
Should the taxpayer be responsible for the healthcare of illegals and their children ?
And people who apply for citizenship are required to have meetings with the immigration authorities...and they must have a means of support and are denied certain benefits....and they went through the system.....why not illegals ?
Okay. On some points I agree...however, why have public services if they don't help the public (meaning no acces to ANY taxpayer paid benefits).
Why the need to have bi-monthly meetings (this just is extra waste). What if they are a student thus can't have a full time job and need a federal loan (taxpayer benefit)?
I think that amnesty should be given to those that are obtaining higher education or worked for x number of years. Those that are below the x number mark would qualify for a guest worker program that acts as a path towards legalization (providing them the ability to learn English, job skills training, and/or college assistance). The whole health insurance requirement and meeting with ICE is a litte much.
"why have public services if they don't help the public"
legal citizens only
If people are paying taxes, they are part of the public. The majority of illegal immigrants do pay income taxes. All people in the US pay sales tax. Also, if they gain amnesty, they would be citizens anyways...
Having documents printed in anything other than english would also seem to be an unnecessary use of taxpayer monies....Lord knows the politicians have a penchant for wasting "our money)
Actually this saves money in the long run. I don't expect you to understand. Accurate projections and accurate censuses are essential for our nation. Why would we want to have an inaccurate census?
As stated, either their family covers the cost or they themselves do, not the taxpayers....
That's ridiculous...simply put. I'm assuming you don't know how much tuition costs. Plus, federal loans are just that...loans. So you want less to go to college, simply due to finances? This is your idea of how to make America better?
Should the taxpayer be responsible for the healthcare of illegals and their children ?
And people who apply for citizenship are required to have meetings with the immigration authorities...and they must have a means of support and are denied certain benefits....and they went through the system.....why not illegals ?
People who apply for citizenship typically are higher on the socio-economic ladder. It is highly cost prohibitve to go via legal means. Again, we need a system that addresses this. We need a system that addresses the immigration market. A black market is thriving due to poor regulation.
Meetings would be another tax burden and just an unneeded layer. It won't serve to accomplish anything. Again, why?
Healthcare really should be universal. It makes no sense that 15% of the United States is not covered, yet we spend more per capita on health than any other nation.
The hope is that we foster and create illegal immigrants to the middle class. Not to create an underclass.
Here we go again! An amnesty would be unfair because it would mostly benefit Hispanics regardless that other ethnicities would be included in it. Do the math! It is also unfair for ANY illegal to gain amnesty because of those waiting to do it the right way.
You clearly don't understand. Okay, the majority of people who took advantage for cash for clunkers were White. Is that fair? Yes, there are more White people in the nation. However, all races were allowed to use this program. Do you see what I'm saying? The demographics can't determine fairness, but rather the implementation would determine fairness. Just like in cash for clunkers, though the majority of people were White, it was a fair program since it did not discriminate.
The research done was not done by the Sierra Club. They were merely mentioned because the question was why as environmentalists doesn't the Sierra club condemn illegal immigration? They became PC like so many fools in this country.
The report was for the Sierra Club. They paid for such a study. Thus, their singlular views (of which are unverifiable), were only represented. Again, Malthusian Carrying Capacity is something that is an unknown.
We already have shortages of everything in this country that is evident. It is obvious that with more people there will be more consumption, overcrowding and social need's demands.
No we don't. That's actually far from the truth...We THROW away more things than any other nation in the world. We use more per capita than any other nation. What needs to change is how we can become more efficient. This is one major critique of Malthus...he doesn't account for ingenuity.
It does make sense to have a smaller economy to fit a smaller population. There are many successful countries who fit that criteria and their citizenry are a lot happier and healthier. Take off those rose colored glasses and use some common sense here.
Again, you seemd lost.Yes, there are many small countries that are great. However, we aren't a small country. We simply can't be. We have the third largest population and the single largest economy. Our economic model is one based on expansion. If we have a smaller economy, then we would collapse. Shrinking an economy is the same as a recession or depression. How do you propose a smaller economy? A smaller population means a graying population. Thus, the tax burden would be high and the production per capita would be lower. This is the situation that they are facing in Japan. The tax burden for the young is high, and per capita output is falling (the old don't work as hard as the young). It's not rose colored, it's called being realistic.
Well, You lost me on this one, let me see what I said that I need to clarify.....
Well, You lost me on this one, let me see what I said that I need to clarify.....
Seeing how this was geared towards another person...it would make sense you are lost, since you were not a part of the conversation. Unless you were following, in which case it should be VERY clear (I guess if unless you don't know Malthus, or the graying population of Japan, or any other concepts/ideas).
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.
