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.
Also -- it's not about being against "immigrants" but many of these "immigrants" do not like Americans at all, and have no intention of learning English or the traditions and culture of this country. They see themselves as Mexican conquerers of the USA and insist that the USA must become a Spanish speaking nation.
And also -- the population of the USA has doubled in just a few decades and will double again in just a few more. How many foreign wars for oil can we fight to provide the fuel needs for a very rapidly growing population? And urban sprawl is destroying our farmlands and forests -- some people will never feel they have enough cheap servants -- even if every wilderness area is paved to build housing projects for the world's poorest to come and work like peons here.
There is already a path to legal immigration -- and the USA has far more legal immigrants than any other nation. Many of the illegals and their employers could not care less about legal immigration because it involves filling out forms, paying fees, waiting with all the others. The employers don't want to have to sponsor their immigrant because that involves taking a little financial responsibility for that immigrant.
What the employers want is to bring in truckloads of dirt-cheap labor and ignore labor laws and cut their labor costs so that they can reap big profits. The CEO's don't want to give up $8 million annual bonuses.
Mexico wishes to dump it's entire underclass into the USA so that it can protect it's extremely wealthy and privileged oligarch class. And Mexico doesn't want to lose any money being raked in by it's remittance sender and drug cartels.
And; as I have stated in the past:
If Mexico wants the goodies a la the European Union; they need to get their own house in order before requesting, let alone demanding anything.
Why should a First World country subsidize a weak, dysfunctional piece of junk?
If anything; if (and when) we take take over Mexico, they will probably see most aspects of their culture disappear within 2 generations. I am referring to the machismo, the drinking, lack of respect for the rule of law, crooked legal system, and to be honest, the discontinuation of the use of Spanish for at least official business.
Quite frankly; it would not surprise me to see at least the northern tier of Mx states devolve to the USA------as in Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua, Sonora as well as both parts of Baja California. As it stands; word has it that NL is already pissed at subsidizing Chiapas, etc-----and, 'threatened' to secede from Mexico proper.
The Mexican flag flying is a total red herring to this conversation. I don't see the relevance. It's like saying "Well, ILLEGALS CAN RAPE YOUR CHILDREN!!!"...yeah well so can legals. As matter of fact, there's a house about 2 blocks down from me flying the Ethiopian flag. Yes, he's legal, even owns a business but is the most unpleasant of personalities.
Immigration should be limited to those people who truly wish to become American -- who have the ability and the desire to learn the language and the traditions of this country.
If it's only for money -- and they prefer their own flag and government then they need to stay home -- and their spot can be filled by someone who wishes to be an American.
And immigration should not be only for Mexicans, it must be fair and impartial. We should not be bringing in more Mexicans than other groups -- we need much more balance and a less racist immigration policy. That means family chain migration should be cut back and immigrants brought in for their desire to fit in and for what they can contribute to this country.
They have steps to come here legally -- they just don't wish to follow them and think they should be rewarded for having broken the laws. Why should an illegal be moved to the front of the line -- ahead of those who patiently followed the laws?
And there are signs of a serious recession coming -- all this cheap labor and job loss to Americans has not really benefitted this country. We cannot keep on having taxpayers pay for the free health care and education for Mexico and keep that corrupt government in power with billions of dollars sent to it every month.
Everything you stated as reasons to counter the "path to legalization" I've already addressed:
"Being rewarded for having broken laws and moving to the front of the line"--not necessarily the case here because they are not being rewarded, just given a chance to redeem themselves by taking steps to becoming legalized. The process should not at all guarantee legalization, as in there will be those that fail (just as those who try to become naturalized citizens). Instead, the path to legalization will simply be a step to given the sincere, productive illegals a chance to prove they are willing to do things the legal way and pay taxes into the system rather than drain money out of the system.
Which leads me to my second rebuttal--
"Signs of recession coming"--which is why we should spend less tax dollars and not to mention ever-expensive gasoline trucking illegals back across the border and get something out of them. By having them become legal citizens, they'd be paying back into the system with their tax dollars--which in turn should help the recession.
Thus, money will actually be restored, rather than lost with the "path to legalization" process.
The Mexican flag flying is a total red herring to this conversation. I don't see the relevance. It's like saying "Well, ILLEGALS CAN RAPE YOUR CHILDREN!!!"...yeah well so can legals. As matter of fact, there's a house about 2 blocks down from me flying the Ethiopian flag. Yes, he's legal, even owns a business but is the most unpleasant of personalities.
Here in Arizona; that Mexican flag in the context of its usage was a slap in the face of us who are American--------of any race/ethnicity.
One never uses a foreign flag in a protest--------if a bunch of Americans flew Old Glory in a protest SOB; the Mexican people would have every right to be offended.
That's because once people actually sit down and think about the situation clearly and rationally and look at all the viable options, they realize that deporting 12-20 million illegals from this country is completeley unrealistic and the only real alternatives are (a) keep them in the shadows or (b) legalization. Which is better? Hard to say. But deportation is not a realistic option
Besides, someone has to mow Mitt Romney's grass and serve the champagne and caviar at the Romney mansions, so of course deporting them is out of the question.
I am thinking about the situation clearly and rationally. In 1986 we 'legalized' 3 million illegal aliens. We were told that this would end the problem of illegal immigration. It most assuredly did not- we now have 12+ million more illegals. How can making them 'legal' be considered a viable option? It did not work then and it is not going to work now. If you give this current crop of illegals amnesty, in another 10-15 years you will have another 15 million who also want to be made 'legal'. Granting amnesty is like ringing the dinner bell. More will invade and simply wait for the next serial amnesty.
People may say that the problem with the 1986 amnesty was that they never secured the border (which was supposed to be part of the deal). Guess what? The gov. is not going to seal it now either. Do we have the technological know how to secure our southern border? Of course we do. But the open borders lobby, ethnic advocacy groups, environmentalists and so forth will never allow that to happen. And unfortunately our rulers are sufficiently cowed by them that they will not proceed. A border fence based on the design of the Israeli fence would deter a very large percentage of border crashers. Unfortunately, I don't see it being built in the near future. So if we grant amnesty to the ones here now, more will continue to swarm across the border waiting for their chance to hop on board the gravy train.
Besides, deportation and legalization are not the only two options. I think attrition through enforcement is the best approach. Cut off the jobs, cut off the benefits and put a halt to the anchor baby scam and most will leave on their own. The ones who don't can be dealt with through deportation.
Also -- it's not about being against "immigrants" but many of these "immigrants" do not like Americans at all, and have no intention of learning English or the traditions and culture of this country. They see themselves as Mexican conquerers of the USA and insist that the USA must become a Spanish speaking nation.
That is why we do not grant AMNESTY but rather give them the opportunity to redeem themselves and truly become LEGAL immigrants. Its sort of like the process of naturalization.
Quote:
And also -- the population of the USA has doubled in just a few decades and will double again in just a few more. How many foreign wars for oil can we fight to provide the fuel needs for a very rapidly growing population? And urban sprawl is destroying our farmlands and forests -- some people will never feel they have enough cheap servants -- even if every wilderness area is paved to build housing projects for the world's poorest to come and work like peons here.
SO basically, what you're arguing here then is not so much anti-illegal immigration but anti-immigration, period. The oil is a nonrenewable resource so whether we have half the amount of people we have now, twice the amount of people we have now, or just stay stagnant---it's going to be gone. Maybe sooner or later but eventually it will be gone. This is why its important to find alternatives to petroleum, hopefully a solution that can be sustainable to not just the US but also the rest of the world. Dumping illegals out is only a small bag of sand into the bottomless pit of our energy demands.
Everything you stated as reasons to counter the "path to legalization" I've already addressed:
"Being rewarded for having broken laws and moving to the front of the line"--not necessarily the case here because they are not being rewarded, just given a chance to redeem themselves by taking steps to becoming legalized. The process should not at all guarantee legalization, as in there will be those that fail (just as those who try to become naturalized citizens). Instead, the path to legalization will simply be a step to given the sincere, productive illegals a chance to prove they are willing to do things the legal way and pay taxes into the system rather than drain money out of the system.
Which leads me to my second rebuttal--
"Signs of recession coming"--which is why we should spend less tax dollars and not to mention ever-expensive gasoline trucking illegals back across the border and get something out of them. By having them become legal citizens, they'd be paying back into the system with their tax dollars--which in turn should help the recession.
Thus, money will actually be restored, rather than lost with the "path to legalization" process.
They have a legal path already available -- and so do their employers. They can return to their home country as long as they have clean record and apply for legal immigration --- just like so many legal immigrants do. And as I said -- the USA takes in far far more legal immigrants than does any other country on this planet.
And -- the money saved by shipping them back to their own country is well spent because virtually none of these illegals pays their own health care costs and are tax-payer subsidized for food and fuel and housing.
The cannot help a recession -- if they could help an economy their own country would want them back and Fox and Calderon both panic over the thought of them returning. The extremely high illegitimacy rate and drop out rate are evidence of what they will do for a country.
Do we want all our cities looking like the sprawling slums of Mexico City?
I am thinking about the situation clearly and rationally. In 1986 we 'legalized' 3 million illegal aliens. We were told that this would end the problem of illegal immigration. It most assuredly did not- we now have 12+ million more illegals. How can making them 'legal' be considered a viable option? It did not work then and it is not going to work now. If you give this current crop of illegals amnesty, in another 10-15 years you will have another 15 million who also want to be made 'legal'. Granting amnesty is like ringing the dinner bell. More will invade and simply wait for the next serial amnesty.
People may say that the problem with the 1986 amnesty was that they never secured the border (which was supposed to be part of the deal). Guess what? The gov. is not going to seal it now either. Do we have the technological know how to secure our southern border? Of course we do. But the open borders lobby, ethnic advocacy groups, environmentalists and so forth will never allow that to happen. And unfortunately our rulers are sufficiently cowed by them that they will not proceed. A border fence based on the design of the Israeli fence would deter a very large percentage of border crashers. Unfortunately, I don't see it being built in the near future. So if we grant amnesty to the ones here now, more will continue to swarm across the border waiting for their chance to hop on board the gravy train.
Besides, deportation and legalization are not the only two options. I think attrition through enforcement is the best approach. Cut off the jobs, cut off the benefits and put a halt to the anchor baby scam and most will leave on their own. The ones who don't can be dealt with through deportation.
That is why we do not grant AMNESTY but rather give them the opportunity to redeem themselves and truly become LEGAL immigrants. Its sort of like the process of naturalization.
SO basically, what you're arguing here then is not so much anti-illegal immigration but anti-immigration, period. The oil is a nonrenewable resource so whether we have half the amount of people we have now, twice the amount of people we have now, or just stay stagnant---it's going to be gone. Maybe sooner or later but eventually it will be gone. This is why its important to find alternatives to petroleum, hopefully a solution that can be sustainable to not just the US but also the rest of the world. Dumping illegals out is only a small bag of sand into the bottomless pit of our energy demands.
I'm arguing against massive uncontrolled immigration -- that's right. We do not need to bring in billions of impoverished people just to keep the big corporations and the elitists happy.
Do we want a population growth rate that's out-of-control with most babies being born to very young unwed teens? Do we want to have the problems of Mexico with a very very rapid population growth that cannot be provided jobs?
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.
