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.
I'm more referring to segments within the American population. So NATO wouldn't really pertain into this discussion.
Oh, well Im not sure how we could be divided when we are all Americans...Unless you mean that we should have solidarity with those who ARENT Americans...which is the point of our immigration laws.
Quote:
No, I understand that YOU personally may or may not concern yourself with stereotypes, however it doesn't negate the fact that stereotypes are quite prevelant. For example the more Anglo sounding name you put on a resume, the better you chances of getting hired in general. Cultural stereotypes abound. On this subforum, there is MUCH evidence of this. Even if you distance yourself, it still may be percieved as a permissive stance. Simply distancing yourself mean you condemn their actions.
Thats what I stated...I just stated that I dont stereotype anyone...Thats all I can do...This is a free country and I cant control anyone elses actions. If everyone wants to place me in that bracket for purposes of political polarization then so be it...I guess I would be distancing myself from drug dealers also..after all, I dont do that either...All I can do is vote my best interest and use my own impartial judgment when assessing people's character..Im not responsible for every other poster, and I wont take responsibility for that behavior...just as you arent responsible for the AntiAmerican/anti Anglo sentiment from La Raza or the Reconquista movement...it is a mute point imo.
Quote:
You are right, we don't have sole authority. Increasingly, due to the massive debt burden we have, our hegemony is diminishing. With that said, our plans still carry weight in lending circles. For example, reforms in Haiti from the IMF (which called for reduction of protective tarrifs) led to massive food shortages in Haiti. American rice was sold cheaper than the Haitian rice, thus causing farmers to lose their way of sustaining a living. However, the global price of rice rose as demand increased globally. Thus, the Haitians were in a position where they were worse off than before. American interests beat out the knowledge of the gov't concerning it's local economy. We may not allocate ALL the funds and dictate ALL the terms, but we have significant weight.
So American rice was cheaper (meaning we gave them a cheaper alternative to their own products) and we're STILL at fault?..And THEIR own underachieving, undereducated govt. means that WE should be responsible for its shortcomings? It sounds like to me that American resources beat out Haitian resources...I interpret that interests have little to do with it...Americans invest more, produce more, lend more, and therefore receive more in return on their investments.
And if we are at fault for Haiti's third world existence, why not just reform the lending institution then?...why does one preclude the other?....meaning, why cant we enforce our existing immigration laws just because according to some, we have unfair lending policies?
Quote:
We don't respect gov't philosphies of other nations. Hence why we have predator drones in Pakistan. Hence why we invade nation after nation without investing in projects that will change the nation. Hence why our credo for African nations is that they should just stop having sex (abstinence only programs getting MORE funding under Bush). We really don't respect a good portion of the world. We are the hegemony, (though in the past several weeks this has slightly changed with China getting mad at the US and waving our debt in our face). We simply turn a blind eye to the abuses of power in most cases when dealing with the 3rd world.
Well, Im not sure anyone can advocate that we respect an enemy's govt. philosophy during military undertakings...BUT, financially we would HAVE to respect other country's govt philosophies if we knowingly invest in countries that have corrupt economies; much the way you said that we willingly propped and supported Mexico's corruption..
China wont do anything...ever...they cant...BUT, as far as U.S. hegemony, we have never had hegemony..It may have appeared to be such, but in a global economy the only way for the U.S. to have hegemony would be through complete balkanization...The U.S. is the largest investor in foreign nations. Even our overseas investments and our corporate satellite branches overseas do their economies more good than it does ours. And I dont know why us turning a blind eye to 3rd World corruption would be a problem...We are not the world police, and we cant just waltz in anywhere and overthrow their govt...the last guy who tried it got a shoe thrown at him at his last press conference, and the American people actually voted to go in a different direction...If anything our current govt. administration is LESS meddling than in years past.
Quote:
We do bear some responsibility for Mexico's economic problems. Not only on a historical level, but currently as well. Our maquilladora's pay below poverty wages and have created environmental harm in the areas where many of these factories sit. Not to mention, again, our lending policies to Mexico. When dealing with raw materials in Mexico, we get the better end of that deal.
See I disagree with this....Actually, until very recently Mexico has had the lowest unemployment rate of prosperous nations...and its middle class has actually been growing steadily...I think that can be attributed to our own heavy investment in Mexico's economy, and our consistent purchase of its exports. Which I suspect is why it isnt lent much money..We support its economy already. And the nation is fairly prosperous..Now if their govt cant remove its corruption and if it cant reign in its profligate spending, then the U.S. cannot take responsibility nor blame for that. I mean, WE are the richer nation, so WE are the one's lending the money. Thats generally how lending works: The lender gets the better end of the deal. Hence, interest rates
Quote:
Please clarify how not supporting the Iraqi invasion has any bearing on immigration policy. I don't have the quotation you are referencing in front of me. I will say that our immigration laws need to be changed in order to benefit both parties. Like the prison game states (in game theory and stats) mutual cooperation yields the best results.
Oh no..lol..I wasnt implying that the Iraq war impacts immigration policy..other than the fact that maybe a few scorned Americans could be invading Mexico for what they perceived to be a past transgression.
Quote:
Yet, this is the stance the Walmart Patriot takes. The whole illegal immigration is tantamount to rape argument for deportation mixes principals with policy.
Yes, I am a "Walmart Patriot"...whatever that ad hoc axiom is supposed to mean.. I suppose I would rather be a Walmart Patriot than a "Dollar Store Patriot"..
Quote:
It would actually include the US more into the world rather than insulate. Closing the borders and deportation would insulate the US further. Creating the mentality that the US is a scared Vahala fit for those with money. Obviously there is a middle ground. That's all I'm advocating. Instead of deportation or completely open borders, I feel that there is some middle ground that can be achieved. I've proposed several ideas on this subforum before. No, we aren't the world's benefactor...however we shouldn't also be the world's dictator
I think the middle ground lies somewhere between actively enforcing our immigration laws, and closing our borders, and bringing our jobs back home...
Enforcing our laws would detour others from entering, closing our borders would stop the leak...but bringing outsourced jobs home would make good paying jobs available to the legal masses, thereby taking the anger and focus away from illegal immigration. It sounds like more insulation and it is..It can be called Vahala, WalMart Patriot or whatever else but at some point we have to start preserving our own culture, and our own economy. But I do hope that such shaming language doesnt detour patriotic Americans from standing strong in defense of their borders..because at the end of the day, it will be Americans who will have to live with the changes to their culture, their economy, and their ways of life that is brought upon them by illegal immigration.
Last edited by solytaire; 02-18-2010 at 12:36 AM..
No it doesn't present an internal conflict in the least.
Company A is headed by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith is in the top .5% of earners in this nation. Smith finds out that if he moves manufacturing to India, he'll save millions over the course of a few years. The stock price of A will rise. Thus, his shareholders agree that moving to India is a great idea. Mr. Smith, obviously, is a capitalist (otherwise why else would he own company A). Capitalism is a core belief of American society (hey, I like capitalism too). Mr. Smith believes that he achieved all he did by the sweat of his brow (the whole rags to riches mythology). His worldview is centered on this VERY American mythology. He justifies exporting labor by this mythology. Mr. Smith is anti-union (as most biz owners are). He aligns himself politically with the party (or candidates) that represents his ideals. In order to justify lower wages to his employees, the candidates and him subscribe to the idea that the "other" (before it was Blacks and Asians...depending on what part of the nation you lived in...now it's illegal immigrants) are "stealing" jobs and reducing wages. The truth of the matter is that company A wanted to raise it's stock and gain Mr. Smith an extra home in the Hamptons. He maintains and even exports his values abroad (via outsourcing) while essentially pandering to others (think the corporate sponsored tea-baggers). Those people who subscribe to what Mr. Smith say...are the quitissential Walmart Patriots.
Free Market Capitalism is only a govt theology for our economy..when you get to the nuts and bolts of our Democratic Republic, we are really more communist than we ever care to admit. Mr. Smith realizes that his money is his, no matter where it comes from...if it were unethical to profit from overseas manufacturing then labor laws would prevent it. Too, in this country Mr. Smith has paid more taxes than those who have stolen the jobs, and is therefore actually contributing MORE to society and the illegal immigrants well being (communism) than the illegal immigrants are contributing to their own. As long as he has met or exceeded fiscal projections, and stayed within his budget, wages shouldnt be a factor...but the problem comes when Mr. Smith is paying 60% of his check in taxes which then go to support those who are stealing the jobs.. (Illegal Aliens, in this case)..while said worker bee is racking up more bills in state services than they are funding.
Quote:
It's not entirely a justification. It's more presenting the argument that is missing on this board. Our immigration laws obviously are not good for business here in the US or good for the immigrants abroad. We need reform. Most Americans have no clue about foreign issues (let alone lending practices abroad). Again, relying solely on the masses (such as we did to go into Iraq) is not always a good idea...the masses don't always know.
I will agree to disagree...I have faith that Americans know how to prioritize their interests...I believe that Americans know what is best for them and their children's futures. I think the only domestic reform necessary is in corporate hiring practices...the rest can be hashed out with foreign and lending policy...
Quote:
Didn't say America isn't lending enough. This analogy doesn't work on SEVERAL levels. First off, America is a first world nation. We have resources, more so than China. Secondly, we can do serious economic harm to China. One tiny example is how foreign companies became reluctant to invest after Google threatened to pull out. America has been the bellweather of foreign investment in China. What we do usually is followed by other nations. Thirdly, the money we borrowed from China doesn't contain strings that have destroyed basic needs such as food production or increased stratification. This goes back to the first point. Sicne we are a wealthy nation, we can dictate the terms of lending better. Also the reasons for obtaining loans is QUITE different (poorer nations typically want loans to jumpstart development and get out of poverty...whereas America borrowed to retain it's hegemony).
Poorer nations have suffered due to lending practices. It's a common criticism.
I realize that lending policy is a common criticism, but it is not one that I think we are obligated to fix alone....Someone will always feel short changed...furthermore from the perspective of an Anti Illegal immgration advocate, I think it is a bit pedantic to even make reform of our lending practices a prerequisite for closing our borders or enforcing our laws.
Really, I dont think that getting bogged down in trade policy reformation and lending policy should be an objective for our immigration legislators and enforcement....the possibilities of such reform wouldnt move the electorate during election season because they dont directly impact American citizens....if politicians can find a way to make these things relevant (convincingly relevant) to the American citizen, then change may be in order...but so far it is not what Americans want addressed..which I think is the overarching problem: No matter HOW wrong people perceive Americans to be in their thinking, no matter how stupid we all are - the reality is that it is this govt's job to enforce the will of the people...Plainly, that is not being done...Our govt. is broken...not our immigration policy nor our lending policy...Judging by the people Ive talked to personally, the immigration debate is far moreso about the govt's lack of accountability to the will of the people, than it is about any xenophobia or bigotry.
Quote:
Revenge and wanting parity are two different things. The third world doesn't want a pity party, but rather wants respect. They don't want to subscribe to the idea of American exceptionalism abroad. How and where we finish isn't a matter of luck...we did A LOT to get to our position. Some of those things are less than savory.
Wanting revenge is simply the result of wanting parity..if it wasnt, there would be no dispute about perceived past misgivings. I mean, EVERY country who is successful did a lot to get their position...illegal immigrants are doing a lot to undercut the American worker resulting in something that is even less than parity...it is mere obsequiousness. Something that unions and labor agreements have battled hard to prevent American workers from having to partake of...
Truthfully, if those third world countries and Mexico etc. dont want to subscribe to American exceptionalism, then they dont need to subscribe to American aide at all...we give more aide to impoverished nations than any other nation. America's exceptionalism is what makes that possible, yet its exceptionalism only becomes a problem when its payback time...Im just not buying that.
Last edited by solytaire; 02-18-2010 at 12:41 AM..
No it doesn't present an internal conflict in the least.
Company A is headed by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith is in the top .5% of earners in this nation. Smith finds out that if he moves manufacturing to India, he'll save millions over the course of a few years. The stock price of A will rise. Thus, his shareholders agree that moving to India is a great idea. Mr. Smith, obviously, is a capitalist (otherwise why else would he own company A). Capitalism is a core belief of American society (hey, I like capitalism too). Mr. Smith believes that he achieved all he did by the sweat of his brow (the whole rags to riches mythology). His worldview is centered on this VERY American mythology. He justifies exporting labor by this mythology. Mr. Smith is anti-union (as most biz owners are). He aligns himself politically with the party (or candidates) that represents his ideals. In order to justify lower wages to his employees, the candidates and him subscribe to the idea that the "other" (before it was Blacks and Asians...depending on what part of the nation you lived in...now it's illegal immigrants) are "stealing" jobs and reducing wages. The truth of the matter is that company A wanted to raise it's stock and gain Mr. Smith an extra home in the Hamptons. He maintains and even exports his values abroad (via outsourcing) while essentially pandering to others (think the corporate sponsored tea-baggers). Those people who subscribe to what Mr. Smith say...are the quitissential Walmart Patriots.
Now see, if I replaced India with China, then the premise for the whole "Nefarious, selfish, globalist, exceptionalist" doesnt really float imo.
Free Market Capitalism is only a govt theology for our economy..when you get to the nuts and bolts of our Democratic Republic, we are really more communist than we ever care to admit. Mr. Smith realizes that his money is his, no matter where it comes from...if it were unethical to profit from overseas manufacturing then labor laws would prevent it. Too, in this country Mr. Smith has paid more taxes than those who have stolen the jobs, and is therefore actually contributing MORE to society and the illegal immigrants well being (communism) than the illegal immigrants are contributing to their own. As long as he has met or exceeded fiscal projections, and stayed within his budget, wages shouldnt be a factor...but the problem comes when Mr. Smith is paying 60% of his check in taxes which then go to support those who are stealing the jobs.. (Illegal Aliens, in this case)..while said worker bee is racking up more bills in state services than they are funding.
Quote:
It's not entirely a justification. It's more presenting the argument that is missing on this board. Our immigration laws obviously are not good for business here in the US or good for the immigrants abroad. We need reform. Most Americans have no clue about foreign issues (let alone lending practices abroad). Again, relying solely on the masses (such as we did to go into Iraq) is not always a good idea...the masses don't always know.
I will agree to disagree...I have faith that Americans know how to prioritize their interests...I believe that Americans know what is best for them and their children's futures. I think the only domestic reform necessary is in corporate hiring practices...the rest can be hashed out with foreign and lending policy...
Quote:
Didn't say America isn't lending enough. This analogy doesn't work on SEVERAL levels. First off, America is a first world nation. We have resources, more so than China. Secondly, we can do serious economic harm to China. One tiny example is how foreign companies became reluctant to invest after Google threatened to pull out. America has been the bellweather of foreign investment in China. What we do usually is followed by other nations. Thirdly, the money we borrowed from China doesn't contain strings that have destroyed basic needs such as food production or increased stratification. This goes back to the first point. Sicne we are a wealthy nation, we can dictate the terms of lending better. Also the reasons for obtaining loans is QUITE different (poorer nations typically want loans to jumpstart development and get out of poverty...whereas America borrowed to retain it's hegemony).
Poorer nations have suffered due to lending practices. It's a common criticism.
I realize that lending policy is a common criticism, but it is not one that I think we are obligated to fix alone....Someone will always feel short changed...furthermore from the perspective of an Anti Illegal immgration advocate, I think it is a bit pedantic to even make reform of our lending practices a prerequisite for closing our borders or enforcing our laws.
Really, I dont think that getting bogged down in trade policy reformation and lending policy should be an objective for our immigration legislators and enforcement....the possibilities of such reform wouldnt move the electorate during election season because they dont directly impact American citizens....if politicians can find a way to make these things relevant (convincingly relevant) to the American citizen, then change may be in order...but so far it is not what Americans want addressed..which I think is the overarching problem: No matter HOW wrong people perceive Americans to be in their thinking, no matter how stupid we all are - the reality is that it is this govt's job to enforce the will of the people...Plainly, that is not being done...Our govt. is broken...not our immigration policy nor our lending policy...Judging by the people Ive talked to personally, the immigration debate is far moreso about the govt's lack of accountability to the will of the people, than it is about any xenophobia or bigotry. This is why I think that at a certain point we must restore more value to our founding principles than we place into our policy.
Quote:
Revenge and wanting parity are two different things. The third world doesn't want a pity party, but rather wants respect. They don't want to subscribe to the idea of American exceptionalism abroad. How and where we finish isn't a matter of luck...we did A LOT to get to our position. Some of those things are less than savory.
Wanting revenge is simply the result of wanting parity..if it wasnt, there would be no dispute about perceived past misgivings. I mean, EVERY country who is successful did a lot to get our position...illegal immigrants are doing a lot to undercut the American worker resulting in something that is even less than parity...it is mere obsequiousness. Something that unions and labor agreements have battled hard to prevent American workers from having to partake of...
Truthfully, if those third world countries and Mexico etc. dont want to subscribe to American exceptionalism, then they dont need to subscribe to American aide at all...we give more aide to impoverished nations than any other nation. America's exceptionalism is what makes that possible, yet its exceptionalism only becomes a problem when its payback time...Im just not buying that.
I believe he was referring to "Wal-Mart Patriotism Mentality" suggesting Walmart to be supported of and catering to a select mentality, not any slam on culture. It was in direct conflict with what the OP was representing.
Oh, well Im not sure how we could be divided when we are all Americans...Unless you mean that we should have solidarity with those who ARENT Americans...which is the point of our immigration laws.
Because people have different thoughts within a group. So while we are "all Americans" we also have different opinions and differences within a group.
Thats what I stated...I just stated that I dont stereotype anyone...Thats all I can do...This is a free country and I cant control anyone elses actions. If everyone wants to place me in that bracket for purposes of political polarization then so be it...I guess I would be distancing myself from drug dealers also..after all, I dont do that either...All I can do is vote my best interest and use my own impartial judgment when assessing people's character..Im not responsible for every other poster, and I wont take responsibility for that behavior...just as you arent responsible for the AntiAmerican/anti Anglo sentiment from La Raza or the Reconquista movement...it is a mute point imo.
Then you tacitly allow this racialization and stereotyping to continue. Silence, in this case, equals consent. No, you aren't responsible for every poster, but if the actions of other posters contradict what is deemed as right (or even moral in some cases) you can stand up for what you believe in. If it's not stereotyping a group of people, then you can say something about that. I have stated SEVERAL times that I don't like race/ethnic based organizations. I have denounced publically some the stances and positions made. Not to mention, that my stance is not the same as their stance. You claim you are anti-illegal and thus have aligned with people that have made stereotypic comments...
So American rice was cheaper (meaning we gave them a cheaper alternative to their own products) and we're STILL at fault?..And THEIR own underachieving, undereducated govt. means that WE should be responsible for its shortcomings? It sounds like to me that American resources beat out Haitian resources...I interpret that interests have little to do with it...Americans invest more, produce more, lend more, and therefore receive more in return on their investments.
Umm...YEAH! Flooding the market of an impoverished nation in order to gain financially is WRONG. Esp. when WE were TOLD that of the devasting effects it would have. It increased famine, unemployment, and overall decreased the standard of living in Haiti. We told them that in order to recieve funds, they would have to open to competition. We blackmailed them to open up to UNFAIR competition in order to recieve funding. No it's not a return on investment when people DIED. The unfair competition had face heavy criticism both domestically and abroad.
And if we are at fault for Haiti's third world existence, why not just reform the lending institution then?...why does one preclude the other?....meaning, why cant we enforce our existing immigration laws just because according to some, we have unfair lending policies?
Well, because of the notion that you proposed "return on investment". We gained money by selling cheaper rice to Haiti. Once the supply dwindled, Haiti faced food shortages (farms that failed were unable to produce to meet demand). Our immigration laws and current lending practices are both predicated on the belief of American exceptionalism. This ongoing idea that America is somehow the exception, the promised land (if you will) that due to this exception, we should make the rules.
Immigration and lending laws would have to be more inclusive in order to be more based in reality as oppossed to mythology.
Well, Im not sure anyone can advocate that we respect an enemy's govt. philosophy during military undertakings...BUT, financially we would HAVE to respect other country's govt philosophies if we knowingly invest in countries that have corrupt economies; much the way you said that we willingly propped and supported Mexico's corruption..
Pakistan is NOT an enemy nation. Let me reiterate this fact, we are NOT at war with Pakistan. We don't respect even ally gov'ts...hence the increased drones in Pakistan. We should respect enemy gov't (more the methods and rationale, as well as social norms) as so much as to gain the trust of civillians on the ground. We don't respect other philosophies abroad, except only those that are aligned with our interests.
China wont do anything...ever...they cant...BUT, as far as U.S. hegemony, we have never had hegemony..It may have appeared to be such, but in a global economy the only way for the U.S. to have hegemony would be through complete balkanization...The U.S. is the largest investor in foreign nations. Even our overseas investments and our corporate satellite branches overseas do their economies more good than it does ours. And I dont know why us turning a blind eye to 3rd World corruption would be a problem...We are not the world police, and we cant just waltz in anywhere and overthrow their govt...the last guy who tried it got a shoe thrown at him at his last press conference, and the American people actually voted to go in a different direction...If anything our current govt. administration is LESS meddling than in years past.
Cutting ties economically would be a HUGE disadvantage. We are debtor nation to China, China is our number 1 trade partner, and China understands that it has a HUGE growing domestic market that it can sell to. Meaning, China has a large bargaining chip...which it has played in recent months. China is the fastest growing investor abroad. The bolded sentence is a contradiction. So the only way for the US to be the hegemonic power (which it currently is) is through complete fragmentation of the US? Most profits abroad are repatriated. Hence why outsource labor...larger margins of profit. We aren't the world's police, but our actions don't reflect that (Iraq, threats to Iran, Panama, etc.) I will concede that there was some justification with Panama, however, still doesn't negate the point we enetered into a nation to overthrow its government due to domestic issues.
Less meddling? We increased our military budget, we have increased troops abroad, we increased strikes in Pakistan...umm I don't think that's less meddling...
See I disagree with this....Actually, until very recently Mexico has had the lowest unemployment rate of prosperous nations...and its middle class has actually been growing steadily...I think that can be attributed to our own heavy investment in Mexico's economy, and our consistent purchase of its exports. Which I suspect is why it isnt lent much money..We support its economy already. And the nation is fairly prosperous..Now if their govt cant remove its corruption and if it cant reign in its profligate spending, then the U.S. cannot take responsibility nor blame for that. I mean, WE are the richer nation, so WE are the one's lending the money. Thats generally how lending works: The lender gets the better end of the deal. Hence, interest rates
Very recently being in the early 1900s? The middle class was actually shrinking (due to a mass privitization push from the 1970s to 1980s that led to a concentration of wealth and created a bubble economy...which collapsed in 1994). Artificially, yeah the economy grew...fundementally it got worse (except for those in the top tier). It's not fairly prosperous. Compared to Chad or Cambodia, sure...but compared to Canada or the United States...not so much. We help support corruption in Mexico, the 1980s push for privitization (in which many officials gained LOTS of money) was supported by Americans. The result was a massive crash. Right, let me get this straight we should simply set the terms of lending for *sometimes* humanitarian reasons and charge interest rates to already poor countries? I spoke to my cousin, she just started training for the World Bank in Paris, she even recoils at the notion of such interest loans. Not even during the Marshall Plan did this happen. Yet, due to increased economic growth in those nations, we still reaped economic rewards.
There should be a distinction from lending institutions like the WB and IMF, and from private investors for private companies. Lending to governments to aid a country should have limited to no interest rates. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of lending in the first place.
Oh no..lol..I wasnt implying that the Iraq war impacts immigration policy..other than the fact that maybe a few scorned Americans could be invading Mexico for what they perceived to be a past transgression.
That's good.
Yes, I am a "Walmart Patriot"...whatever that ad hoc axiom is supposed to mean.. I suppose I would rather be a Walmart Patriot than a "Dollar Store Patriot"..
Well, not here to judge...harshly. I guess you are right, dollar store would be worse...
I think the middle ground lies somewhere between actively enforcing our immigration laws, and closing our borders, and bringing our jobs back home...
Or it could be seeing what the data currently states about this new demographic, make laws that reflect the current situation, and aligning communities towards the new economic paradigm we have (more education, more emphasis on "green" jobs).
Enforcing our laws would detour others from entering, closing our borders would stop the leak...but bringing outsourced jobs home would make good paying jobs available to the legal masses, thereby taking the anger and focus away from illegal immigration. It sounds like more insulation and it is..It can be called Vahala, WalMart Patriot or whatever else but at some point we have to start preserving our own culture, and our own economy. But I do hope that such shaming language doesnt detour patriotic Americans from standing strong in defense of their borders..because at the end of the day, it will be Americans who will have to live with the changes to their culture, their economy, and their ways of life that is brought upon them by illegal immigration.
Our current laws and closing the borders simply would foster the black market illegal immigration that you rally against. Without alternatives to enter and less economic and social restrictions...you still will have MANY people vying to enter via any means possible. We have seen this with the border fence. The illegal immigrant population GREW significantly in San Diego AFTER the implementation of the fence. Simply bringing home jobs will cost the economy TONS of money. We are already entrenched with this system, thus we need to find alternative good paying jobs...as well as train MORE people to be proficient in our current economy. The inner city and rural poor are still in our old blue collar, high school education economy. The bigger culprit of lost jobs is not so much outsourcing, but rather automation. So, we need to train more people in technologies to deal with the new reality.
Americans blindly following rhetoric is more damaging than the typical lower middle class illegal immigrant. The voting populace needs to understand that America, while great, can be better. It's up to us as citizens to uphold the ideals of parity and liberty in our nation...not a warped sense of those terms.
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.
