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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-27-2010, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by expect View Post
^last 3 points would support my argument that this is not an "invasion" by any definition of the word.
because unless you believe the government and everybody else in the country are idiots, no country would ever WELCOME invaders.. it is contradictory to call it that
. unless its the french. lol im joking
but yes why would an intrusive, harmful and unwanted "invasion" be welcomed the way you both agree they are?
because it is not an invasion. it is an intrusion, it is a transgression, they are trespassers. id like to add that at no point have i said that there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration, i just wanted to point out the poor choice of words of certain people and answer the op why the army isnt at the border. especially with yet another poor choice of words, "fight off" illegal immigrants.
i rest my case.
The citizens of this country haven’t “welcomed” illegal aliens. They are only welcomed by our greedy corporations and their government underlings. So yes, we have been invaded, only this invasion is government-sponsored.

 
Old 01-27-2010, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Why won't the army fight of illegals at the border?
1. Its not up to them who they get to fight. That would be congress etc.
2. remember the peeing contest when Bush first sent National Guard troops to help on the border? Everybody wants to be the boss.
3. If given the choice I am 99% sure most of our soldiers would prefer duty on the border to duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I have no doubt this is true. They protect the borders of other countries because it is their duty as military personnel. They hold no allegiance to those countries, or love for its citizens. However, I believe most would protect our borders even without orders. After all, they would be protecting their families and friends.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
I have no doubt this is true. They protect the borders of other countries because it is their duty as military personnel. They hold no allegiance to those countries, or love for its citizens. However, I believe most would protect our borders even without orders. After all, they would be protecting their families and friends.
Correct as usual Queen Benicar. Soldiers tend to be ultra patriotic and very very protective of our nation. LOL Its what we are supposed to do and be.
I know from my own experiences that it was very frustrating to be held back by our elected reps from doing what we swore an oath to do.
Thousands of american citizens are victims of illegals each year. More so than 911. And yet our esteemed leadership pretends that it is a minor issue.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 03:47 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,612,395 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by expect View Post
^last 3 points would support my argument that this is not an "invasion" by any definition of the word.
because unless you believe the government and everybody else in the country are idiots, no country would ever WELCOME invaders.. it is contradictory to call it that.
bu
.
True, in the past...but not neccessarily so today. "No country would welcome invaders", you say? Never in the past, maybe...but so what? I could just as easily make the statement "Cultures, by definition, hold their own values superior to the values of OTHER cultures; NO culture holds that 'other cultures' are just as good as IT....and NO culture seeks to share influence with other cultures; cutures, by definition, promote THEMSELVES, not 'outsiders' "...Yet today, our society has adopted 'multiculturalism', and has rendered my above statement untrue. What once was true, may no longer be.

Whereas "no country, IN THE PAST, has welcomed an invasion", it's quite apparent that THIS country, today, is doing exactly that; and if TEN PERCENT of one large country moving into ANOTHER large country, (many of them doing so illegally), doesn't fit your definition of an 'invasion', it certainly comprises something pretty close to it....and, I dare say, something pretty much unprecedented in history, EXCEPT in cases of WAR. (SO FAR, our illegal 'invasion' hasn't turned violent...but again, the key word is 'so far').

So you say 'invasion' isn't the correct term for what's going on? OK, I feel better now...it's not an invasion.

As for the matter of 'disenchanted Americans', spewing anger because they're mad at 'our government'? That's an easy one....people are simply realizing that there's a HUGE building groundswell against illegal immigration, and since "our government" (which has accomplished HUGE things in the recent past, and could obviously 'do something' about illegals if it wanted to) seems uninterested in (or unwilling to) "do anything about it", the uneasy conclusion is that perhaps the reason for this discrepancy is that "our government", in actual fact, is no longer really "ours", except on paper. That's a bitter pill to swallow, particularly among a population that's traditionally felt we, the people, "are" the government.... and as this fact becomes better understood, and begins to 'sink in', it's possible that "our" disenchantment and disapointment may turn into something worse.

Let's hold our breaths, and hope that doesn't happen.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Correct as usual Queen Benicar. Soldiers tend to be ultra patriotic and very very protective of our nation. LOL Its what we are supposed to do and be.
I know from my own experiences that it was very frustrating to be held back by our elected reps from doing what we swore an oath to do.
Thousands of american citizens are victims of illegals each year. More so than 911. And yet our esteemed leadership pretends that it is a minor issue.
Note to self. Do NOT read a tinman post while drinking water.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Correct as usual Queen Benicar. Soldiers tend to be ultra patriotic and very very protective of our nation. LOL Its what we are supposed to do and be.
I know from my own experiences that it was very frustrating to be held back by our elected reps from doing what we swore an oath to do.
Thousands of american citizens are victims of illegals each year. More so than 911. And yet our esteemed leadership pretends that it is a minor issue.
This is an inconvenient truth that should appall all citizens.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
True, in the past...but not neccessarily so today. "No country would welcome invaders", you say? Never in the past, maybe...but so what? I could just as easily make the statement "Cultures, by definition, hold their own values superior to the values of OTHER cultures; NO culture holds that 'other cultures' are just as good as IT....and NO culture seeks to share influence with other cultures; cutures, by definition, promote THEMSELVES, not 'outsiders' "...Yet today, our society has adopted 'multiculturalism', and has rendered my above statement untrue. What once was true, may no longer be.

Whereas "no country, IN THE PAST, has welcomed an invasion", it's quite apparent that THIS country, today, is doing exactly that; and if TEN PERCENT of one large country moving into ANOTHER large country, (many of them doing so illegally), doesn't fit your definition of an 'invasion', it certainly comprises something pretty close to it....and, I dare say, something pretty much unprecedented in history, EXCEPT in cases of WAR. (SO FAR, our illegal 'invasion' hasn't turned violent...but again, the key word is 'so far').

So you say 'invasion' isn't the correct term for what's going on? OK, I feel better now...it's not an invasion.

As for the matter of 'disenchanted Americans', spewing anger because they're mad at 'our government'? That's an easy one....people are simply realizing that there's a HUGE building groundswell against illegal immigration, and since "our government" (which has accomplished HUGE things in the recent past, and could obviously 'do something' about illegals if it wanted to) seems uninterested in (or unwilling to) "do anything about it", the uneasy conclusion is that perhaps the reason for this discrepancy is that "our government", in actual fact, is no longer really "ours", except on paper. That's a bitter pill to swallow, particularly among a population that's traditionally felt we, the people, "are" the government.... and as this fact becomes better understood, and begins to 'sink in', it's possible that "our" disenchantment and disapointment may turn into something worse.

Let's hold our breaths, and hope that doesn't happen.
I have a bad feeling that this is inevitable.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 04:16 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by expect View Post
^last 3 points would support my argument that this is not an "invasion" by any definition of the word.
because unless you believe the government and everybody else in the country are idiots, no country would ever WELCOME invaders.. it is contradictory to call it that. unless its the french. lol im joking
but yes why would an intrusive, harmful and unwanted "invasion" be welcomed the way you both agree they are?
because it is not an invasion. it is an intrusion, it is a transgression, they are trespassers. id like to add that at no point have i said that there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration, i just wanted to point out the poor choice of words of certain people and answer the op why the army isnt at the border. especially with yet another poor choice of words, "fight off" illegal immigrants.
i rest my case.
I don't think our government expected the massive numbers that would come here under their lax enforcement of our immigration laws. They probably figured a few illegal aliens to give their corporate buds some cheap labor would do our country no harm. Well it turned into an invasion rather than a few here and there. They didn't try to do anything about it until it was too late and we had millions here illegally. Now they think the only way to fix it is to give them amnesty. They are dead wrong as usual.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 04:24 PM
 
Location: California
706 posts, read 796,028 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
I have a bad feeling that this is inevitable.

" it's possible that "our" disenchantment and disapointment may turn into something worse."

I often wonder just what that "something worse" would be. Would it be the response from the American people or the response from our own government in response to the actions of some "fringe" element in our society ?

Things seem to be falling into place for both sides....

Scary
 
Old 01-27-2010, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,113 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by expect View Post
lol that is the 4th option given @ dictionary.com, and merrian webster's and oxford english dictionary are more authoritative than "dictionary.com"
regardless, all you needed to come here legally during that time was to arrive at a boston or new york port.. then you were let in. i'd say the hardships they were facing (the irish) are a lot worse than what mexicans face now, so to think that they wouldn't have come here illegally if entry to the country wasn't allowed is kind of foolish. those people were desperate.
government "disapproval" is just a front they put up to maintain a position that they are against illegal immigration... a lot of corporations, companies, small businesses etc hire illegals because it is convenient for them to do so and benefit from cheap labor, your or my objections to the problem be damned.. if illegal immigration was a REAL concern for the government, they would've done something about it.. obviously other things such as healthcare, 2 wars, about 10% unemployment and so on are what the govt is more concerned with.
the irish came here legally and weren't given jobs.. mexicans come here illegally and work in many different sectors of the economy. why would INVADERS be given so many opportunities to work? if they are so "harmful" and "intruding" on our "peace" and "security"
"invaders".. the irish, the chinese, i guess the italians also to some extent were considered this.. and now its the mexicans turn.. the chinese were also "invaders" at some point (while at the same time working on railroads and gold mines n whatever else)... hence the chinese exclusion act..
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Quote:
At last week’s Job Summit, there was talk of a second stimulus package, of tax credits for small businesses that hire new workers, of an Infrastructure Bank to select national priority public works projects like the Hoover Dam and TVA of yesteryear.

But no one, it seems, advanced the one obvious idea that would have the most immediate and dramatic impact — a moratorium on all immigration into the United States.
Unemployment is at 10 percent, near the postwar high of 1983. Fifteen million Americans are out of work. Ten million more have given up looking or are working fewer hours than they would like.
We have been losing jobs every month for two years.
Why, then, are we still bringing immigrants into the United States at a rate of 125,000 a month to take jobs from fellow Americans and compete with our unemployed for the jobs that open up?
In the last year, 1.5 million new immigrants have come to take up residence and been issued work permits. Probably twice as many jobs have been taken by these folks as the 650,000 the Obamaites claim were saved or created by their $787 billion stimulus package. How do Democrats justify this?
How can they justify bringing in another 1.5 immigrants in 2010 and another 1.5 million in 2011, when 25 million Americans they are supposed to represent are unemployed or underemployed?
If Obama voters feel disillusioned do they not have valid reason?
As for illegal aliens, it is estimated that 8 million still hold jobs in the United States. Endlessly we are told that these hardworking folks are just doing jobs that Americans refuse to do.
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.


Closed Thread

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