Court Stops Arizona Law\ California Vindicated (renting, mortgage, how much)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Highnlite

Ideology is a tricky thing, it will trump facts every time.

It's not ideology I concern myself with. It's law. That should trump bleeding hearts and other similar afflictions!

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Don't change the subject. You were responding to the other poster's statement that the US has a history of racist immigration policies

Who's the one trying to change the subject? Read the title of this thread. Does it say "Court Stops Chinese Exclusion Act?" That embarrassing argument was nothing but another fishing expedition for red herring.


Highnlite lands a whopper!

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

Who's the one trying to change the subject? Read the title of this thread. Does it say "Court Stops Chinese Exclusion Act?" That embarrassing argument was nothing but another fishing expedition for red herring.

Who's changing the subject? You are.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

It's actually an illustration, not a comparison, but the commonality is unlawful entry. Whether the unlawful entry is into a dwelling (in violation of California Penal Code 459), or into a country (in violation of U.S. Code, Title 8, Sec. 1325), neither the perpetrator's country of origin nor race has any bearing on the justifiability of the violation.

But but but....you said it is behavior rather than ethnicity that determines whether one has violated immigration law. You were told that the Chinese Exclusion Act - by its very name - refutes your assertion. Did the US ever have a Scottish Exclusion Act? Highnlite is correct: the US has a history of racist immigration policies.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

It's actually an illustration, not a comparison, but the commonality is unlawful entry. Whether the unlawful entry is into a dwelling (in violation of California Penal Code 459), or into a country (in violation of U.S. Code, Title 8, Sec. 1325), neither the perpetrator's country of origin nor race has any bearing on the justifiability of the violation.

Ok, I understand that. However, would you agree that the issue has more to do with the incentive (jobs places to rent etc.) and that's where we should be tackling this?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Ok, I understand that. However, would you agree that the issue has more to do with the incentive (jobs places to rent etc.) and that's where we should be tackling this?

That would be a great start!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

That would be a great start!

I personally believe that would be quite significant. After all, if it's hard for them to make any sort of life here, why come at all?

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Ok, I understand that. However, would you agree that the issue has more to do with the incentive (jobs places to rent etc.) and that's where we should be tackling this?

This is a multi-faceted problem that will require a variety of arrows in our problem-solving quiver. Yes, incentives are one angle of the issue. So is legal immigration policy. But border security is, too. The fact that no single legislative action constitutes a panacea by itself doesn't mean that it isn't a necessary component of a comprehensive approach to covering all the bases.

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Originally Posted by Highnlite

Ah yes, stealing our jobs, I see the tea partiers out protesting that the illegals get all the good jobs.

And, if you read my post, even if the false statistics were true for California and the illegals cost the state 20 billion bucks a year, they contribute 29 billion bucks a year, in agriculture alone.

Ideology is a tricky thing, it will trump facts every time.

Prove it.

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I personally believe that would be quite significant. After all, if it's hard for them to make any sort of life here, why come at all?

Free medical care?
Free education?
Free food stamps?

...