NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I believe that the immigration movement needs a bit of a public relations makeover. I would fire the firm that they are using at the moment. Maybe they need to get a clue. How is it this will change American public opinion. Let's take a great Socialist/Communist holiday and turn it into an anti-American protest because we(Mexico) are breaking US laws. What the hell are these people thinking. These kind of things make me non-sympathetic to the illegals cause. When I see this kind of crap I say f*** 'em. Seriously they need to figure it out better...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/14/mexico.boycott.ap/index.html

Fine, let them boycott. It hurts thier economy more than ours.

Let's withdraw NAFTA and see what they say.

indeed, fuck them, seal the border, nothing goes in or out. stop all trade with them, see how long they last

indeed, fuck them, seal the border, nothing goes in or out. stop all trade with them, see how long they last
No, we can't do that. It's the Mexican government's right to tell us what to do with our border. We have no say in the matter.

No, we can't do that. It's the Mexican government's right to tell us what to do with our border. We have no say in the matter.
Is that sacarsm because we should have just told East Berlin to tear down that wall then and they would have done it.

These people pulling crap like this makes me respect them as much as I did the Mohammad Cartoon Rioters. As in ZERO respect.

For me May 1st will be, Flip off whiny Gringo day. There is a right way and a wrong way, but this is the stupid way. They're attacking the ones that WANT them.

Fine, let them boycott. It hurts thier economy more than ours.

i think you missed out on what the story is...

No, we can't do that. It's the Mexican government's right to tell us what to do with our border. We have no say in the matter.
:confused:

Time to write your Senators, Congressman, Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, Senate Majority Leader and President Bush.

NOTE: It is a felony in Mexico to enter Mexico illegal.

Mr. Speaker,

I do not think either you or the Republican leadership understands what American citizens want to see in an immigration bill. This law abiding non-protesting legal American citizen wants to see:
1. Make it a felony to enter this country illegally.
2. Very large fines for companies that hire illegal immigrants and enforcement of those fines.
3. No "path to citizenship" for anyone here illegally.
4. People can apply for guest worker status only from their home country.
I don’t think you are listening to us. If you do not start listening and get an immigration bill the people want, the Republicans could find themselves on the minority side of the aisle after the election. I have sent copies of this to Senator Frist, Senator Inhofe, Senator Coburn, Representative Boehner, and Representative John Sullivan, President Bush.
Thank you for your time.

:confused:
I was refering to Vincente Fox's complaints about us not allowing Illegals to come across the border freely and the maps and instructional pamphlets his government passes out to people who want to cross the border in violation of US law.

In solidarity with the Mexicans, I'll boycott US goods on May 1, too.

Alas, I try to do that as much as possible anyway, but still! Solidarity!

Let's withdraw NAFTA and see what they say.

I think MOST Mexican's would love that!

NAFTA has ruined their agriculture industry and allowed easy access for the US and Canada into Mexico, but of course not for Mexico into Canada and the US.

American right wingers/conservatives want free trade for their exports into other nations, but one element of a liberalised global ecnonomy (free movement of people) is resited by them because of their bigotry at the "greaseballs" coming into the US.

Given that most of the "illegals" are in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and given that these states were annexed by a war of agression against Mexico by an expansionist US, the conservative's hypocracy only ever makes itself more apparent.

Fine, let them boycott. It hurts thier economy more than ours.

Let's withdraw NAFTA and see what they say.

NAFTA? NAFTA? Where's NAFTA? Oh you mean the governing council that declared the US owes Canada $5 BILLION dollars? America will be more hurt than anybody else, because Mexico and Canada will stop making stupid deals thinking they have the protection of flimsy pieces of paper.

I think MOST Mexican's would love that!

NAFTA has ruined their agriculture industry and allowed easy access for the US and Canada into Mexico, but of course not for Mexico into Canada and the US.

American right wingers/conservatives want free trade for their exports into other nations, but one element of a liberalised global ecnonomy (free movement of people) is resited by them because of their bigotry at the "greaseballs" coming into the US.

Given that most of the "illegals" are in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and given that these states were annexed by a war of agression against Mexico by an expansionist US, the conservative's hypocracy only ever makes itself more apparent.
1) So maybe then Mexico wouldn't mind giving back all the industrial jobs and factories that NAFTA sent accross the border.

2) It's dishonest and offensive to act as if every person opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. It's just a tactic to silence dissenting viewpoints.

3) One doesn't need to be a conservative to oppose illegal immigration, and the illegals are found in large numbers in states like Georgia as well.

1) So maybe then Mexico wouldn't mind giving back all the industrial jobs and factories that NAFTA sent accross the border.

2) It's dishonest and offensive to act as if every person opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. It's just a tactic to silence dissenting viewpoints.

3) One doesn't need to be a conservative to oppose illegal immigration, and the illegals are found in large numbers in states like Georgia as well.

Hey, you're not supposed to inject reality into a US/conservative bashing rant!!!!

1) So maybe then Mexico wouldn't mind giving back all the industrial jobs and factories that NAFTA sent accross the border.

the jobs would have gone to mexico anyways. it's called outsourcing.
agreed on the other points tho.

NAFTA? NAFTA? Where's NAFTA? Oh you mean the governing council that declared the US owes Canada $5 BILLION dollars? America will be more hurt than anybody else, because Mexico and Canada will stop making stupid deals thinking they have the protection of flimsy pieces of paper.
Canada's Methanex company has been hiding behind NAFTA trade regulations to short circuit California environmental laws regulating Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, a toxic and carcinogenic fuel addative. Neither country has it's hands clean and NAFTA is just a bad treaty.

It's dishonest and offensive to act as if every person opposed to illegal immigration is a racist.

true, some of them are stupid or ignorant and just happen to be repeating racist lies and talking points.

Canada's Methanex company has been hiding behind NAFTA trade regulations to short circuit California environmental laws regulating Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, a toxic and carcinogenic fuel addative. Neither country has it's hands clean and NAFTA is just a bad treaty.

More facts, DCD? You should know better.

true, some of them are stupid or ignorant and just happen to be repeating racist lies and talking points.
A brilliant argument like that deserves an equally well thought out rebuttal.

Yo Mamma's ignorant.

Canada's Methanex company has been hiding behind NAFTA trade regulations to short circuit California environmental laws regulating Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, a toxic and carcinogenic fuel addative. Neither country has it's hands clean and NAFTA is just a bad treaty.
a wise man once said, "facts, shmacts. you can make facts prove anything you want." one example of sneakiness on our side doesn't invalide our claims.

neither country is innocent, granted, but agreements like NAFTA and especially the FTAA benefit America more than anyone else. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, capitalism can run rampant in america, because the social structure is in place to accomodate it. america is likely the only country that would not be greatly troubled by allowing companies to sue governments for enacting legislation that interferes with profits. thus american companies, and america, profit by taking advantage of countries that were dumb enough to sign on.

I think MOST Mexican's would love that!

NAFTA has ruined their agriculture industry and allowed easy access for the US and Canada into Mexico, but of course not for Mexico into Canada and the US.

American right wingers/conservatives want free trade for their exports into other nations, but one element of a liberalised global ecnonomy (free movement of people) is resited by them because of their bigotry at the "greaseballs" coming into the US.

Given that most of the "illegals" are in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and given that these states were annexed by a war of agression against Mexico by an expansionist US, the conservative's hypocracy only ever makes itself more apparent.
Ummmm...


:confused:

Mexico has a massive trade surplus with the US... :confused:

Time to write your Senators, Congressman, Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, Senate Majority Leader and President Bush.

NOTE: It is a felony in Mexico to enter Mexico illegal.

Mr. Speaker,

I do not think either you or the Republican leadership understands what American citizens want to see in an immigration bill. This law abiding non-protesting legal American citizen wants to see:
1. Make it a felony to enter this country illegally.
2. Very large fines for companies that hire illegal immigrants and enforcement of those fines.
3. No "path to citizenship" for anyone here illegally.
4. People can apply for guest worker status only from their home country.
I don’t think you are listening to us. If you do not start listening and get an immigration bill the people want, the Republicans could find themselves on the minority side of the aisle after the election. I have sent copies of this to Senator Frist, Senator Inhofe, Senator Coburn, Representative Boehner, and Representative John Sullivan, President Bush.
Thank you for your time.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. You're certainly not speaking for me, and according to all the polling that's been done on this subject, you're in the minority as well. (http://pollingreport.com/immigration.htm)
"Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?" Options rotated

Deport All Remain for Limited Time Remain if Meet Certain Requirements Unsure
% % % %
4/7-9/06 18 17 63 2
That 63% is for "Remain if meet certain requirements," which directly contradicts your point number 3.

But what do we tell all the thousands of people who have been waiting patiently to immigrate legally for years? "Sorry you had to wait, but these people who came here illegally last month get citizenship before you."

Overreacting aren't they. x-x:confused:

But what do we tell all the thousands of people who have been waiting patiently to immigrate legally for years? "Sorry you had to wait, but these people who came here illegally last month get citizenship before you."
we should annex mexico and do away with the whole debate.

we should annex mexico and do away with the whole debate.
It would be really funny if we annexed Mexico and deported the Mexicans as Illegals.

It would be really funny if we annexed Mexico and deported the Mexicans as Illegals.
Roflmao....where would they go then?

Roflmao....where would they go then?
Canada. We'll export them in accordance with NAFTA free trade regulations.

But what do we tell all the thousands of people who have been waiting patiently to immigrate legally for years? "Sorry you had to wait, but these people who came here illegally last month get citizenship before you."
That's a bullshit comparison and if you don't know better, you ought to. None of the current immigration bills allows the people who come in "last month" to jump the queue. The amnesty is for people who have been here and have established themselves. If you want to play the fairness card, the least you could do is make a fair comparison.

That's a bullshit comparison and if you don't know better, you ought to. None of the current immigration bills allows the people who come in "last month" to jump the queue. The amnesty is for people who have been here and have established themselves. If you want to play the fairness card, the least you could do is make a fair comparison.
My point wasn't directed at the bill. It was pointed at people who don't think the current bill goes far enough.

My point wasn't directed at the bill. It was pointed at people who don't think the current bill goes far enough.
Ah. My apologies.

Canada. We'll export them in accordance with NAFTA free trade regulations.
yes, but you have to make sure you aren't exporting subsidized illegal immigrants. that would break down the whole process.

That 63% is for "Remain if meet certain requirements," which directly contradicts your point number 3.

Depends on the poll:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312922

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

That's a bullshit comparison and if you don't know better, you ought to. None of the current immigration bills allows the people who come in "last month" to jump the queue. The amnesty is for people who have been here and have established themselves. If you want to play the fairness card, the least you could do is make a fair comparison.

So what do we tell those who have been waiting when we allow millions who have been here for more than five or twelve years to jump ahead of them in line?

Let's take a great Socialist/Communist holiday and turn it into an anti-American protest because we(Mexico) are breaking US laws.
This comment is just postmodern. Nay, surreal.

So what do we tell those who have been waiting when we allow millions who have been here for more than five or twelve years to jump ahead of them in line?

They should have risked their lives and the lives of their families to cross the desert like everyone else. It is VERY difficult to immigrate, even temporarily, from Mexico to the US and it is EXPENSIVE. In order to be granted a temporary residency, you need to be able to prove that you have a certain amount of money, both in bank and in assests. Which the majority of people who are crossing illegally do not. Legal immigration is just another systematic way to bring the rich in and keep the poor out.

Also, to whoever said that it wouldn't have an effect on our economy: maybe not just for one day. But we export A LOT of our manufactured good to Mexico. The whole system is ironic, we buy their raw materials and then employ them to produce goods, which we then sell to them. The point isn't that the US is giving Mexico jobs, its that the US has COMPLETE CONTROL of the Mexican economy...there is a very underdeveloped internal market which is only being further squashed by NAFTA and other "free" trade measures.

Nothing gringo? Are they going to stop driving their cars? Eating meat (or bread, for that matter, since Mexico imports an enormous amount of grains from the US)? No Coke or other pops (of which Mexico is the largest consumer per capita)? No cell phones (some are European, but the technology is largely US)? No computers? No internet? No TV? What about the jobs generated by US companies operating in Mexico?

Maaan, some people are dumb. Really, a lot of people in Mexico (and the US) don't understand how closely related both economies have become. They're more like siamese twins now, joined by the liver. And boycotts rarely solve things, anyway.

Besides, I keep an eye on Mexico and am in constant communication with family and friends, and this is the first I've heard about this boycott. Probably just a stupid email going around that most people go "ha ha" when they read. Most people in Mexico have much more sense than that.

Depends on the poll:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312922

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.htmlThat first poll you sent me to actually backs up what I said--64% of people said that people already here should either be allowed to stay permanently or given guest worker status. You're still in the minority.

So what do we tell those who have been waiting when we allow millions who have been here for more than five or twelve years to jump ahead of them in line?
That you're sorry for the delays but that you're going to reform the system to make it fairer, faster, and cheaper?

These people pulling crap like this makes me respect them as much as I did the Mohammad Cartoon Rioters. As in ZERO respect.


Whys that? Is because free speech that must protected and they have no right to be offended? If thats the case than you would respect Christians who riot when someone draws Christ upside down on the cross sodomizing an alter boy with a crucifix or black people who riot when someone draws them as apes, right? Afterall, we have to protect free speech.

So what do we tell those who have been waiting when we allow millions who have been here for more than five or twelve years to jump ahead of them in line?
Sucks to be you? Look, I'm all for tightening border security--as long as we're talking about really tightening it up and not just talking about targeting brown people--and for relaxing immigration rules so that people can get here legally. But let's not kid ourselves--the reason illegal immigration for Mexicans is a problem is because they represent cheap labor that companies can exploit mercilessly by saying "you work for nothing and let us fuck you over or we send you back to Mexico" and the companies have nothing to fear because at worst they face a slap on the wrist if they get caught. Let's see some hiring folks and some CEOs go to jail for this and see how quickly the business commmunity starts to holler for real immigration reform. What's going on now is thinly disguised racism.

Nothing gringo? Are they going to stop driving their cars? Eating meat (or bread, for that matter, since Mexico imports an enormous amount of grains from the US)? No Coke or other pops (of which Mexico is the largest consumer per capita)? No cell phones (some are European, but the technology is largely US)? No computers? No internet? No TV? What about the jobs generated by US companies operating in Mexico?
cars = japanese
foodstuffs = who knows, but for a day i'm sure they could cope
soda = coke yes, but fanta among others is european
cell phones = japanese and european, the technology is largely not US since they had them well before america did
computers = american technology, yes, but probably made elsewhere
internet = invented by the brits i believe
tv = we could all do with less tv
jobs by US companies = profit for US companies = point of the boycott

and boycotts do solve problems, e.g. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Whys that? Is because free speech that must protected and they have no right to be offended? If thats the case than you would respect Christians who riot when someone draws Christ upside down on the cross sodomizing an alter boy with a crucifix or black people who riot when someone draws them as apes, right? Afterall, we have to protect free speech.

Destroying something (Buildings, people, an economy) over the actions of bigots never works. They'll still be bigots. It's okay to be offended, It's not okay to use that as an excuse to attack others.

You seem to think that Free Speech=A license to Kill\Destroy?

And they are Boycotting because they, who may I remind you are still breaking the law by crossing the border, are mad that people are going to get on to them for breaking the law? Losers!

Destroying something (Buildings, people, an economy) over the actions of bigots never works. They'll still be bigots. It's okay to be offended, It's not okay to use that as an excuse to attack others.

You seem to think that Free Speech=A license to Kill\Destroy?
well that's a double-edged sword. should we wait until people actually make good on their 'free speech' before taking action, or should we snip the problem in the bud? after all, the president of iran might just be exercising free speech, and so we should let them have nuclear weapons.

Destroying something (Buildings, people, an economy) over the actions of bigots never works. They'll still be bigots. It's okay to be offended, It's not okay to use that as an excuse to attack others.

You seem to think that Free Speech=A license to Kill\Destroy?
My point was that there actions should be expected given the circumstances. Do you really think people wouldnt be killed if the cartoons I mentioned were published?

Destroying something (Buildings, people, an economy) over the actions of bigots never works. They'll still be bigots. It's okay to be offended, It's not okay to use that as an excuse to attack others.

You seem to think that Free Speech=A license to Kill\Destroy?

And they are Boycotting because they, who may I remind you are still breaking the law by crossing the border, are mad that people are going to get on to them for breaking the law? Losers!

Comparing this to the riots in Denmark is kind of ridiculous because they are protesting economic disadvantage, exploitation AND racism. Also, the majority of Americans who are anti-immigrant aren't so because "they broke a law and breaking laws is bad" -- its because the are misinformed about the actual economic and social contributions that immigrants make to this country.

cars = japanese
There are still quite a few Fords and GMs on Mexican roads, you know. Also Chryslers, but they were bought by Daimler, so it's European now.
foodstuffs = who knows, but for a day i'm sure they could cope
Actually, fasting for a day would make a lot of people a lot of good.
soda = coke yes, but fanta among others is european
Yes, but the bulk of consumption is Coke and Pepsi. It'll be good news for Barrilitos, Peñafiel, and Pascual; but I think at least one of those was bought by Coca-Cola.
cell phones = japanese and european, the technology is largely not US since they had them well before america did
Erm... no, they didn't. The technology had been in development in the US since the fifties. Chicago was the first city with cellular coverage in the world, in 1978, or 79.
computers = american technology, yes, but probably made elsewhere
Meh, stupid patents and operating system (which most people pirate anyway, very few use Linux) mean most of it goes back to the US
internet = invented by the brits i believe
The hypertext transfer protocol was invented by a Brit (not the Brits, it was this particular Brit) working at CERN in Switzerland. The internet was invented by the US. The research branch of the Defense Department and some Universities.
tv = we could all do with less tv
And TV shows.
jobs by US companies = profit for US companies = point of the boycott
So, the point of the boycott is increasing unemployment in Mexico?

and boycotts do solve problems, e.g. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.
They lasted longer than a day.

By the way, it's just dawning on me that that day the ENTIRE government of Mexico is going to stop buying stuff from the US, because it's going to be closed!! Ha ha!

Comparing this to the riots in Denmark is kind of ridiculous because they are protesting economic disadvantage, exploitation AND racism. Also, the majority of Americans who are anti-immigrant aren't so because "they broke a law and breaking laws is bad" -- its because the are misinformed about the actual economic and social contributions that immigrants make to this country.
Not true. The actual economic contributions are negative.

Between 1980 and 2000, legal and illegal immigration reduced the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent, according to research done in 2004 by George Borjas, economics professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The situation was worse if one considers only the 10 million U.S.-born men who lack a high school degree. For them, the increased supply of workers depressed wages by 7.4 percent, he found.


Illegal immigrants use federal, state and local resources, including schools, medical care and emergency services, straining government coffers and costing taxpayers money. However, many of the costs are tied to their kids _ many of them American-born children who are U.S. citizens.

At the federal level, the big cost is through Medicaid and food-assistance programs, according to Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter immigration rules.

Camarota acknowledges that some illegals pay federal taxes, but he said their cost to the federal government _ $12 billion, according to his estimate _ is greater.
http://www.sacunion.com/pages/california/articles/8108/

Some people claim that illegal aliens do jobs that "Americans don't want". This is a classist argument designed to harm poor Americans and keep them unemployed, helpless, marginalized, and disenfranchized. Americans will do any job if it pays well enough, but the jobs won't pay well enough if someone from out of the country is willing to do it for half the price. Also it discourages the use of machines to do some of the jobs that illegals do now. Those machines must be manufactured, which would boost the US manufacturing economy and create a few really well paid jobs.

The hypertext transfer protocol was invented by a Brit (not the Brits, it was this particular Brit) working at CERN in Switzerland. The internet was invented by the US. The research branch of the Defense Department and some Universities.


Actually, by Al Gore.

More on the economic impact of illegal aliens.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/view_article.php?a_id=642

So, the point of the boycott is increasing unemployment in Mexico?

the boycott, like you've been saying, is all kinds of funny for its stated purpose. i think the underlying basis is the allure of money in the US, and a feeling of unfairness that it isn't really shared. american companies get rich off cheap labour in mexico, but it still remains cheap labour in mexico. i think immigration is just a flashpoint. a daylong boycott is symbolic, but if it were really carried out, it might be enough to show companies what would happen if mexicans did this for real.

More on the economic impact of illegal aliens.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/view_article.php?a_id=642

you can hardly call the freedom alliance a non-biased source. i would like to see where they get their statsitics before i believe it.

you can hardly call the freedom alliance a non-biased source. i would like to see where they get their statsitics before i believe it.
I'd never heard of the group prior to doing a search for the economic impact of illegal immigration. Fine. Just look at my post just before the one you've commented on.

Sucks to be you? Look, I'm all for tightening border security--as long as we're talking about really tightening it up and not just talking about targeting brown people--and for relaxing immigration rules so that people can get here legally. But let's not kid ourselves--the reason illegal immigration for Mexicans is a problem is because they represent cheap labor that companies can exploit mercilessly by saying "you work for nothing and let us fuck you over or we send you back to Mexico" and the companies have nothing to fear because at worst they face a slap on the wrist if they get caught. Let's see some hiring folks and some CEOs go to jail for this and see how quickly the business commmunity starts to holler for real immigration reform. What's going on now is thinly disguised racism.

+1
Best post in this thread.

Not true. The actual economic contributions are negative.

bullshit.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7622

Want to make more money? Move to a city teeming with immigrants, say two economists from California and Italy who have linked immigrant labor to robust economies in American cities.

The five cities that have benefited the most are Los Angeles, San Jose, Austin, Houston and Phoenix, all which have seen tremendous increases in their immigrant residents over the past 30 years, say Giovanni Peri from the University of California, Davis, and Gianmarco Ottaviano from the University of Bologna, Italy.

By looking at the data on the 100 largest U.S. cities over the past three decades, the two economists found that for each 1 percent increase in the number of foreign-born workers in a city, American-born workers saw a 0.3 percent increase in real wages.

Sacramento, which is average for growth in immigrant workers among the 100 cities studied, saw an 8 percent growth in immigrant labor from 1970 to 2000. That translates to a 2 percent improvement in real wages for U.S. American-born workers over those three decades due to the immigration effect, Peri says. In 2000, immigrants comprised more than 14 percent of the Sacramento work force.

"Our work shows that cities with more diversity -- more immigrants -- in the work force exhibit higher productivity for the American-born employees," Peri says.

Cities with little or no growth in immigration, such as Cleveland, Buffalo and Pittsburgh, did not benefit from this phenomenon during the same time, according to Peri and Ottaviano's calculations...

bullshit.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7622
Fuck, are you kidding me? That study doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are fine. They pay federal and state taxes. They're guaranteed to earn at least minimum wage. Of course they're an economic plus. We're discussing illegal aliens here. Many pay no taxes at all. They still end up using public services like emergency rooms, police and such. Also because they're not in a position to complain they take all kinds of shit at their jobs and don't make a fuss. That means that employers hire them over citizens and end up lowering wages for unskilled workers.

Fuck, are you kidding me? That study doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are fine. They pay federal and state taxes. They're guaranteed to earn at least minimum wage. Of course they're an economic plus. We're discussing illegal aliens here. Many pay no taxes at all. They still end up using public services like emergency rooms, police and such. Also because they're not in a position to complain they take all kinds of shit at their jobs and don't make a fuss. That means that employers hire them over citizens and end up lowering wages for unskilled workers.

well then, legalize those that are here, and throw open the border to all peaceful people, and then we can all benefit even more greatly from it.

well then, legalize those that are here, and throw open the border to all peaceful people, and then we can all benefit even more greatly from it.
I'm not opposed to more LEGAL immigration. I have a problem with illegal aliens and the attitude that their supporters have. I've heard Mexican-American illegal alien supporters spout off in speeches saying that making the USA a Mexican-majority nation is one of their goals. I've heard them say that illegal immigration is a right. It infuriates me. If you want to come here and work, fine. Play by the rules. If not, stay the fuck out. And if you give an illegal a job, be prepared to do hard time.

Sucks to be you? Look, I'm all for tightening border security--as long as we're talking about really tightening it up and not just talking about targeting brown people--and for relaxing immigration rules so that people can get here legally. But let's not kid ourselves--the reason illegal immigration for Mexicans is a problem is because they represent cheap labor that companies can exploit mercilessly by saying "you work for nothing and let us fuck you over or we send you back to Mexico" and the companies have nothing to fear because at worst they face a slap on the wrist if they get caught. Let's see some hiring folks and some CEOs go to jail for this and see how quickly the business commmunity starts to holler for real immigration reform. What's going on now is thinly disguised racism.

Gee Nazz, you say it must suck to be me then go on to say the same thing I've been saying only you said it differently. :fluffle: The only thing you said that I disagree with is the bit about "thinly disguised racism. Yes, let's tighten up the border and keep all the illegals out white, brown, black, yellow or any other color you can think of. Yes, let's stop the exploitation of the cheap labor. If companies can't get that cheap labor, they will have to pay more and maybe citizens and legal immigrants can earn a decent living without having to work two jobs. Yes, let's really fine companies that hire illegals thousands of dollars a day per worker, and enforce the law and fines.

internet = invented by the brits i believe

Everyone knows Al Gore invented the internet. He said so himself. :p

Comparing this to the riots in Denmark is kind of ridiculous because they are protesting economic disadvantage, exploitation AND racism. Also, the majority of Americans who are anti-immigrant aren't so because "they broke a law and breaking laws is bad" -- its because the are misinformed about the actual economic and social contributions that immigrants make to this country.

Most of us want to make sure those immigrants who contribute to this country entered legally. We do have a right to control our immigration as does every other country in the world.

Biggest problem with not tightening the borders up. Let's say we give all illegal Mexicans and others in this nation amnesty. After all Mexico is about 60% of the illegal population right now. The others being people overstaying there visas. Anyway lets make em all legal and give everyone a group hug. Well that would sound just fine. Nothing is done about the border because of political BS on both sides of the aisle. Next thing you know we have 20 mill illegal immigrants that take the jobs the former illegals have given up. You actually think that the current illegal population is going to become legal and then still pick produce? Your kidding yourself if you think that. Why when as a legal US citizen you can now not be exploited and get a decent job. Anyway what then? We will still be debating this topic 25 years from now. Beef up the damn border and start enforcing our current laws. However some path needs to be given for citizenship for the illegals that are currently here. It would be cost prohibitive to ship everyone home for the holidays. This isnt a racist viewpoint that most people have about the border. It is a safety issue for all Americans.

Depends on the poll:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312922

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

Americans are split three ways over illegal immigration, with about one-third saying undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States permanently and about one-third saying such immigrants should be granted only temporary worker status, according to a new poll. Another 27 percent say illegal immigrants should be required to return to their native countries.

"So the public is really very divided on this issue," says Andrew Kohut, director of the the Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey. "The ambivalence is remarkable."

You were saying?

Most of us want to make sure those immigrants who contribute to this country entered legally. We do have a right to control our immigration as does every other country in the world.

But you've made it perfectly clear that your problem is immigrantion, not illegal immigration per se.

I'd never heard of the group prior to doing a search for the economic impact of illegal immigration. Fine. Just look at my post just before the one you've commented on.

The Freedon Alliance was founded by Lt. Col. Oliver North. It's main goal is to raise money to provide college scholarships for the children of our fallen military men and women.

bullshit.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7622

And UC Davis is not biased! :rolleyes:

well then, legalize those that are here, and throw open the border to all peaceful people, and then we can all benefit even more greatly from it.I'm not opposed to more LEGAL immigration. I have a problem with illegal aliens and the attitude that their supporters have. I've heard Mexican-American illegal alien supporters spout off in speeches saying that making the USA a Mexican-majority nation is one of their goals. I've heard them say that illegal immigration is a right. It infuriates me. If you want to come here and work, fine. Play by the rules. If not, stay the fuck out. And if you give an illegal a job, be prepared to do hard time.

Then you have no objection to Free Soviets's proposal.

The Freedon Alliance was founded by Lt. Col. Oliver North. It's main goal is to raise money to provide college scholarships for the children of our fallen military men and women.

"The Mission of Freedom Alliance is to advance the American heritage of freedom by honoring and encouraging military service, defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense."

"Freedom Alliance, a 501(c)3 educational and charitable foundation, was founded in 1990 by LtCol Oliver L. North, who now serves as the organization's honorary chairman. We will work to "keep America strong, keep America prosperous, and keep America free," said North upon the founding of Freedom Alliance. And so we have. "

That means that employers hire them over citizens and end up lowering wages for unskilled workers.

Did you know there are some companies in Alabama that laid off or fired citizens and hired illegal immigrants to replace them? My brother-in-law's girlfriend was fired from a meat processing plant because she was out sick to long. :mad:

Did you know there are some companies in Alabama that laid off or fired citizens and hired illegal immigrants to replace them? My brother-in-law's girlfriend was fired from a meat processing plant because she was out sick to long. :mad:

Sentence B relates to sentence A, how?

Biggest problem with not tightening the borders up. Let's say we give all illegal Mexicans and others in this nation amnesty. After all Mexico is about 60% of the illegal population right now. The others being people overstaying there visas. Anyway lets make em all legal and give everyone a group hug. Well that would sound just fine. Nothing is done about the border because of political BS on both sides of the aisle. Next thing you know we have 20 mill illegal immigrants that take the jobs the former illegals have given up. You actually think that the current illegal population is going to become legal and then still pick produce? Your kidding yourself if you think that. Why when as a legal US citizen you can now not be exploited and get a decent job. Anyway what then? We will still be debating this topic 25 years from now. Beef up the damn border and start enforcing our current laws. However some path needs to be given for citizenship for the illegals that are currently here. It would be cost prohibitive to ship everyone home for the holidays. This isnt a racist viewpoint that most people have about the border. It is a safety issue for all Americans.

That is exactly what has happened. Reagan gave amnest to 3 million in the 80s.

Then you have no objection to Free Soviets's proposal.
I never said I did. I just want to make sure that we have some controls in place to keep track of who's coming into the country and make sure that they play by the rules.

That is exactly what has happened. Reagan gave amnest to 3 million in the 80s.

And we all know how badly that turned out. :rolleyes:

But you've made it perfectly clear that your problem is immigrantion, not illegal immigration per se.

Not I sir. Either you misread what I have been saying or are having a problem comprehending what I am saying. So here it is, "I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration."

I never said I did. I just want to make sure that we have some controls in place to keep track of who's coming into the country and make sure that they play by the rules.

Nice dodge.

Not I sir. Either you misread what I have been saying or are having a problem comprehending what I am saying. So here it is, "I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration."

And yet when confronted with a solution that makes immigration legal, you are against it.

Did you know there are some companies in Alabama that laid off or fired citizens and hired illegal immigrants to replace them? My brother-in-law's girlfriend was fired from a meat processing plant because she was out sick to long. :mad:
That's fucked up. What's also fucked up is that your brother in law has a girlfriend. You're ok with him cheating on your sister?

And yet when confronted with a solution that makes immigration legal, you are against it.

One of the solutions for the problem is for all the illegal immigrants to go home and apply to come back as guest workers or legal immigrants. Amnesty is not a solution. It did not work under Reagan and will not work now.

Nice dodge.
What dodge? I've got no problem with legal immigration. Never said I did. I'm against illegal immigration because it's a drain on the economy, it's willfull violation of US law, and it drives down wages for poor Americans. Where's the dodge? You seem obsessed with finding some kind of hidden agenda behind everything I post. What the fuck? Is there some kind of personal problem between us I should know about?

That's fucked up. What's also fucked up is that your brother in law has a girlfriend. You're ok with him cheating on your sister?

That is not nice and you should stop trolling.

One of the solutions for the problem is for all the illegal immigrants to go home and apply to come back as guest workers or legal immigrants. Amnesty is not a solution. It did not work under Reagan and will not work now.

Why not?

Meethinks your only problem with amnesty is that immigration continued. If, under a new law, that immigration was legal, you'd have no problem, right?

That is not nice and you should stop trolling.
Sorry dude. Your post just kind of looked as if it implied extramarital hijinks and I couldn't resist making a comment.

You seem obsessed with finding some kind of hidden agenda behind everything I post. What the fuck? Is there some kind of personal problem between us I should know about?

He is trolling. He is doing the same thing to me so I just put him on ignore.

What dodge? I've got no problem with legal immigration. Never said I did. I'm against illegal immigration because it's a drain on the economy, it's willfull violation of US law, and it drives down wages for poor Americans. Where's the dodge? You seem obsessed with finding some kind of hidden agenda behind everything I post. What the fuck? Is there some kind of personal problem between us I should know about?

No personal problem.

Would you or would you not support an immigration policy that essentially let in all non-criminals/dangerous types?

I think you hide a desire to legal immigration limited.

No personal problem.

Would you or would you not support an immigration policy that essentially let in all non-criminals/dangerous types?

I think you hide a desire to legal immigration limited.
Yes as long as it doesn't become a drain on the economy and the people genuinely want to be good American citizens.

And there you go again trying to read my mind. Stick to law. The psychic stuff ain't working.

He is trolling. He is doing the same thing to me so I just put him on ignore.

Yes. Pointing out flaws in your "I'm not anti-immigration, I just want to see the right forms filed and fees paid" position is trolling. :rolleyes:

So much for debate.

Yes as long as it doesn't become a drain on the economy and the people genuinely want to be good American citizens.

And there you go again trying to read my mind. Stick to law. The psychic stuff ain't working.



So is that a yes to Free Soviets's proposal?

Or would legal immigration "become a drain on the economy."

You are already admitting their are things other than the legality of the immigration that concern you. That is more than you did before you were presssed on the point.

So is that a yes to Free Soviets's proposal?

Or would legal immigration "become a drain on the economy."

You are already admitting their are things other than the legality of the immigration that concern you. That is more than you did before you were presssed on the point.
1) I don't remember the details of Free Soviet's proposal, but if it is I agree to it.

2) Eventually it might, but for now the data point to legal immigrants having a positive impact on the nation's economy.

3) The economic impact is one of the reasons I'm against illegal immigration. If legal immigration became a drain on our economy I'd be against that too. Currently it's not. Currently it seems to be a positive factor, therefore I'm in favor of it. What's so hard to understand about wanting the best for my country?

1) I don't remember the details of Free Soviet's proposal, but if it is I agree to it.

2) Eventually it might, but for now the data point to legal immigrants having a positive impact on the nation's economy.

3) The economic impact is one of the reasons I'm against illegal immigration. If legal immigration became a drain on our economy I'd be against that too. Currently it's not. Currently it seems to be a positive factor, therefore I'm in favor of it. What's so hard to understand about wanting the best for my country?

Good answers.

But can you explain why whether a person has filled out the right forms determines whether they are an economic drain or positive?

Good answers.

But can you explain why whether a person has filled out the right forms determines whether they are an economic drain or positive?
He pays local, state and federal taxes that defray the costs of services he may recieve. Many illegals pay no taxes other than perhaps sales tax.

He's guaranteed at least minimum wage and his legal status makes him less afraid to tell an employer to "take this job and shove it" rather than working for a pittance and driving down wages for the poor.

His employer has to kick money into the payroll tax system that funds Social Security and Medicare because now he's a worker on the books.

He can also take advantage of educational and job training opportunities that make him a more valuable and productive worker.

Legal workers can unionize and bargain collectively for more wages.

Cinco de Mayo. (http://www.song-teksten.com/song_lyrics/ween/chocolate_and_cheese/buenas_tardes_amigo/)