San Diego to condemn Arizona today (legality, statistics, airport)

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I disagree with tis. I can't see how overpopulating can help the country. Just ask China that. Europe's population has been declining or leveling off slightly in most areas yet they seem to be doing quite well for the most part.

What do you think is the "correct" population size? And what should the "correct" composition of the population be? Should the US be 100% white? 50% white, 10% black, 10% Asian, 30% Hispanic? Or any other permutation of the above? Should we allow only people with an IQ of 120 and higher to live in the US, and expel everyone else who fails this mark? And who gets to decide these things? Should we be laissez faire about it and just let nature take its course?

[wranglerdavis]

To disrespect a large segment of the state is not wise. Arizona doesn't seem to hesitate in being disrespectful to Blacks and Latinos and has to suffer the consequences of it's racism.

How is passing a law at the state level that has been on the books at the federal level racist and disrespectful to blacks and Latinos? The purpose of the law is to ensure safety. Go back and read my earlier comments regarding crime rates, etc. Why is it that people who can't debate the merits always resort to name calling. Do you think that proves your point?

Asking a non-white person to produce his passport to prove that he is the real McCoy while whites are not subjected to the same requirement is an assault on one's dignity

First, who said anything about passports? It can be any form of ID showing someone is either a citizen (driver's license or other ID which ALL Americans must carry by law) or a green card which must be carried by NON-CITIZENS. Furthermore, one gives up the right to respect/dignity when one breaks the law. Police and other officials can only ask for proof of citizenship if they are already interviewing someone they have reasonable suspician of breaking another law. Don't you people even know the law against which you are protesting?

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by californio sur

What city "counsul" in California will find out that they got it wrong "come election" day? Do you honestly think the people in these California cities will vote out their city council for calling for an Arizona boycott? The reason San Francisco\ Los Angeles\ San Diego\ West Hollywood\ Sacramento\ Oakland\ Carson, etc have condemned Arizona is to keep some people from rioting [like what happened in Santa Cruz over the weekend]. Some students are on a hunger strike at UC Berkeley demanding the university chancellor publicly call for a boycott of Arizona: UC Berkeley Students On Second Day Of Hunger Strike - News Story - KTVU San Francisco (http://www.ktvu.com/news/23456683/detail.html - broken link)

There are a lot of cities across the U.S. that are considering a boycott of Arizona [including Austin\ El Paso\ St Paul\ New York]: Boycotting Arizona, Boycott List for the Nationwide Boycott of Arizona & Immigration Law Protest | Ranker - A World of Lists

That would be San Diego, No one in San Diego is threatening to riot over a law we wish we had here. After the story of the San Diego City Counsel’s vote hit the San Diego Union the response comments were heavily negative. Arizona is simply listening to their voters. San Diego is not. Like it or not, there will be changes. The illegals got to go, and the whining liberals are free to go with them.

[wranglerdavis]

What do you think is the "correct" population size? And what should the "correct" composition of the population be? Should the US be 100% white? 50% white, 10% black, 10% Asian, 30% Hispanic?

Who said anything about racial quotas? Please stick to the issues and stop making stuff up that nobody said. It only detracts from the issues.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

What do you think is the "correct" population size? And what should the "correct" composition of the population be? Should the US be 100% white? 50% white, 10% black, 10% Asian, 30% Hispanic? Or any other permutation of the above? Should we allow only people with an IQ of 120 and higher to live in the US, and expel everyone else who fails this mark? And who gets to decide these things? Should we be laissez faire about it and just let nature take its course?

Woah! What tangent have you gone off on? I simply said that we don't need to overpopulate. By this I mean that we should maintain a sustainable population. This would be good for all in the country as resources (yes they are limited believe it or not) would be more available.

At no point did I ever even hint at what the racial makeup of the country (or any country) should be. Nor did I come within 1500 miles of talking about anyones IQ?

[intelfan11315]

Originally Posted by sav858

Well we're talking about politicians, San Diego one's at that, so "honorable" doesn't really belong in the conversation here.

Honor? I'd be less worried about the honor of my city and more worried about the $$ . Leave the honor to your family.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by wranglerdavis

Who said anything about racial quotas? Please stick to the issues and stop making stuff up that nobody said. It only detracts from the issues.

Racial quotas are not the point. You missed my point by a mile. Go get the frisbee and give it back to me. Then sit.

The point is, who decides what the "correct" size and composition of the population is? I assume that since you oppose "illegal immigration", you have some concept in your head of what the United States population ought to look like. And if you don't harbor such a concept, then your whole opposition to "illegal aliens" is really much ado about nothing.

The anti-illegal alien hysteria is analogous to the Prohibition. The more you prohibited alcohol, the more lucrative it became, and the more attractive it was to criminals as a source of profit. The best thing that ever happened to law enforcement during the Prohibition era was the abolition of prohibition.

If immigration laws are relaxed and borders are opened up, foreigners would not need to circumvent laws to cross the border to come here. The Prohibition of aliens and the criminality triggered by it would come to an end. They'd be here paying their share of taxes to compensate for the public services they utilize.

Their presence stimulates economic growth, creates jobs. Have you ever been to ethnic enclaves in urban areas (Chinatowns, Koreatowns, etc)? They are buzzing with economic activity, despite the recession. Immigrants are relatively young. They are in the stages of their life cycles that they start families, buy homes, send kids to school, start businesses. This is what propels economic growth. The multiplier effect amounts to billions of dollars of economic activity.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Woah! What tangent have you gone off on? I simply said that we don't need to overpopulate. By this I mean that we should maintain a sustainable population. This would be good for all in the country as resources (yes they are limited believe it or not) would be more available.

At no point did I ever even hint at what the racial makeup of the country (or any country) should be. Nor did I come within 1500 miles of talking about anyones IQ?

Define "sustainable population". What do you think is the correct population of the US?

You missed the point about IQ. The point about IQ is that it's just an example of an arbitrary criterion that anyone can put up to restrict immigration to the US, just as you used "overpopulation" as your reason for such restriction, or as the US government used race as was done with the Chinese Exclusion Act.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by wranglerdavis

It can be any form of ID showing someone is either a citizen (driver's license or other ID which ALL Americans must carry by law) or a green card which must be carried by NON-CITIZENS. Furthermore, one gives up the right to respect/dignity when one breaks the law. Police and other officials can only ask for proof of citizenship if they are already interviewing someone they have reasonable suspician of breaking another law. Don't you people even know the law against which you are protesting?

Wrong. You don't need to carry a driver's license if you don't drive a car.

And with regards to "breaking the law" - this goes back to my earlier point about semantics. A law can't be broken if it doesn't exist.

[wranglerdavis]

Go get the frisbee and give it back to me. Then sit.

There you go again calling names (implying anyone who disagrees is a dog) instead of debating the facts.

The point is, who decides what the "correct" size and composition of the population is? I assume that since you oppose "illegal immigration", you have some concept in your head of what the United States population ought to look like. And if you don't harbor such a concept, then your whole opposition to "illegal aliens" is really much ado about nothing. If immigration laws are relaxed and borders are opened up, foreigners would not need to circumvent laws to cross the border to come here. The Prohibition of aliens and the criminality triggered by it would come to an end. They'd be here paying their share of taxes to compensate for the public services they utilize.

Their presence stimulates economic growth, creates jobs. Have you ever been to ethnic enclaves in urban areas (Chinatowns, Koreatowns, etc)? They are buzzing with economic activity, despite the recession. Immigrants are relatively young. They are in the stages of their life cycles that they start families, buy homes, send kids to school, start businesses. This is what propels economic growth. The multiplier effect amounts to billions of dollars of economic activity.

Once again you are confusing being against illegal immigration with legal immigration. I'm all for legal immigration and think it should be easier. But neither you nor anyone else have ever addressed my main point which is that securing the border is about safety. Tell me how allowing anyone and everyone in the country without screening of any kind would lessen the drugs, human trafficking and prostitution, kidnapping, murder, etc. The statistics speak for themself.