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.
Reason: The ever incompetent Obama has moved on to even greater stupidity in regards to SYRIA.
Very possible he wants to add 11 to 30 million cheap foreign workers to the legal labor pool is to have higher unemployment for Americans who will then be willing to fight and die in Syria. There doesn't seem to be any other reason you'd want to add those who are breaking the immigration laws to the legal labor pools when so many Americans are out of work.
Very possible he wants to add 11 to 30 million cheap foreign workers to the legal labor pool is to have higher unemployment for Americans who will then be willing to fight and die in Syria. There doesn't seem to be any other reason you'd want to add those who are breaking the immigration laws to the legal labor pools when so many Americans are out of work.
Well, Obama was advocating for this way before Syria became an issue. I think we all know the bottom line motive is to secure the Hispanic vote for the Democrats forever.
It is up to Mexico to create jobs for their own citizens not us. NAFTA has negatively impacted our own citizens also.
Walmart destroyed jobs in the US by buying manufactures from Asia. Now, it is true that we can all be good Americans and refuse to BUY anything manufactured in Asia, but when these trade agreements create a market in which a peasant can't live, you can't wash your hands of the results which is a flood of peasants coming to this country and working illegally to keep from starving. Which brings me back to my point. Either go with NAFTA and open the gates to the results. Or actually try to save those Mexican jobs IN Mexico and reform trade agreements so they don't destroy jobs outside our borders. It is all well and good to tell yourself "I can have my cake and eat it too" but economics doesn't have an escape clause.
Walmart destroyed jobs in the US by buying manufactures from Asia. Now, it is true that we can all be good Americans and refuse to BUY anything manufactured in Asia, but when these trade agreements create a market in which a peasant can't live, you can't wash your hands of the results which is a flood of peasants coming to this country and working illegally to keep from starving. Which brings me back to my point. Either go with NAFTA and open the gates to the results. Or actually try to save those Mexican jobs IN Mexico and reform trade agreements so they don't destroy jobs outside our borders. It is all well and good to tell yourself "I can have my cake and eat it too" but economics doesn't have an escape clause.
But why should we "regular" Americans pay for any bad agreements made by our government by just rolling over and accepting illegal immigration into our country? Our government didn't ask our opinion via our votes on these deals. Most illegals coming here are not starving. It is just that they can make more money here along with our government handouts. I don't "have my cake and eat it to" because we regular Americans do not benefit from illegal immigration but instead are bearing the negative brunt of it.
Walmart destroyed jobs in the US by buying manufactures from Asia. Now, it is true that we can all be good Americans and refuse to BUY anything manufactured in Asia, but when these trade agreements create a market in which a peasant can't live, you can't wash your hands of the results which is a flood of peasants coming to this country and working illegally to keep from starving. Which brings me back to my point. Either go with NAFTA and open the gates to the results. Or actually try to save those Mexican jobs IN Mexico and reform trade agreements so they don't destroy jobs outside our borders. It is all well and good to tell yourself "I can have my cake and eat it too" but economics doesn't have an escape clause.
Uh; China, the biggest source of Wal Mart and many other stores' stuff ain't such a big cause of low wages and no jobs in the US. It's to the point that wages in China are getting so high it's cheaper to make "cheap junk" here in the US in 2013.
Mexico: too bad, let it take care of its own, it ain't a poor country like Haiti. It's birthrate is falling like a rock; I'm saying it, there ain't that many Mexicans of 2013 in their child bearing years out of 100 Mexican citizens compared to Mexico of 1980. IMHO Mexico will have a BELOW replacement birthrate in about 2 to 5 years.
Well, Obama was advocating for this way before Syria became an issue. I think we all know the bottom line motive is to secure the Hispanic vote for the Democrats forever.
Sadly, this is the real reason behind Obama's interest in making illegal immigrants "legal". Yet another example of a politician putting what's best for the party AHEAD of what's best for the country.
I think his ranking at the bottom of the list is secured, with or without amnesty.
Uh; China, the biggest source of Wal Mart and many other stores' stuff ain't such a big cause of low wages and no jobs in the US. It's to the point that wages in China are getting so high it's cheaper to make "cheap junk" here in the US in 2013.
Mexico: too bad, let it take care of its own, it ain't a poor country like Haiti. It's birthrate is falling like a rock; I'm saying it, there ain't that many Mexicans of 2013 in their child bearing years out of 100 Mexican citizens compared to Mexico of 1980. IMHO Mexico will have a BELOW replacement birthrate in about 2 to 5 years.
I won't keep repeating. You can take that attitude that we don't have to change what's not our fault. But we did sign these treaties. Americans did not vote the people who pushed them out of office. Ergo, most Americans are complicit in the trashing of economies that resulted. You trash another economy and the people can get to your territory, they'll be right there, all around you, underbidding you for the jobs you want. I've heard all the "solutions" for this. Good luck. Not one of them sounds in the least convincing. Yeh, with luck, you can pass laws. That's nice political theater. How has it worked in the past? We have tons of laws against using drugs. We filled the prisons, and drugs kept on being sold. We spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS trying to reverse that without success. Now you want another set of laws because you believe in "just passing laws". I predict more hundreds of billions spent, just so you can get stuff cheap. Are you beginning to see the irony here? The neverending pursuit of the cheap deal ends up either causing the need to raise taxes or borrow money. And then polticians touting a "simple solution" which they know damned well will never work. But if they can get back in office, who cares if the rubes who cast their votes get what they want?
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.
