hell, we've been doing that. We just cant do it to accomodate the "latino" community or any community at a 12 mill every so years rate.

4/19/2006 2:29:18 AM

Haha, that's now what we've been doing at all.

Your argument seems to be shifting to one that we discussed earlier in the thread (or in another thread). IIRC, Lonesnark pretty much said that if certain gov. regulations were removed, it would be easy to accommodate for a high rate of immigration.

4/19/2006 2:42:13 AM

No my argument is not shifting. And how the hell would they know that if certain gov regulations were removed its outcome would be x. Thats merely opinion. I will not(no longer in this thread)engage in inductive arguments. Fact is, we need border patrol(closed borders). Fact is, we need a line drawn in our present immigration. Fact is, we don't need to be over crowded.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 3:04 AM. Reason : .]

4/19/2006 2:59:56 AM

Quote :

"No my argument is not shifting."

You went from saying that we shouldn't let them in because they're criminals, to we shouldn't let them in because we can't accommodate them.

Quote :

" And how the hell would they know that if certain gov regulations were removed its outcome would be x. Thats merely opinion."

I don't know if LoneSnark is right or not. His basis for believing we can accommodate them is based on some economical knowledge he has. My basis for believing we can accommodate them is because the US, by far, is the richest country on the planet. There's a LOT we can do, that most other countries can't.

Quote :

"I will not engage in inductive arguments. Fact is, we need border patrol(closed borders). Fact is, we need a line drawn in our present immigration. Fact is, we don't need to be over crowded."

Now you're just starting to sound a bit nutty (actually, you've been sounding nutty, but we accommodate those types here, up to a point). None of those are facts, as you state them.

We DO need border patrol, but not closed borders. There IS a line drawn in immigration (which is why we have so many illegals). And we are by no means overcrowded (I can look out my window right now, and see hundreds of acres of forest, maybe thousands). That's simply a mindless, ridiculous assertion. That's anecdotal of course, but statistically, the US is no where near overcrowded.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 3:10 AM. Reason : ]

4/19/2006 3:09:20 AM

How is my name being thrown around? I checked page 3 and padowack is accosting me about immigration wanting benefits, something I addressed for several pages back. Where did TKE-Teg go with his rediculous "money theft" argument go? This immigration thing was covered back on page 2.

That said, I can recap a bit. The theory goes, we can halt immigration from every country on Earth if we chose to but Mexico. In fact, after 20 years of repeatedly doubling the border patrol, illegal immigration is as bad as ever. Doing so again isn't going to fix the problem, so we need another solution when it comes to Mexico. By dramatically increasing the legal allotment from Mexico we can reduce the push at the border for illegal immigration, hopefully to a point of controllability.

So, the theory is not that immigration is by default beneficial (the studies go both ways), but by dramatically increasing legal routes to immigration, the total number of immigrants (legal + illegal) can actually be reduced. People don't just take off for the border on a whim, they do so because they don't see another way to get in. By reducing the length of that waiting list and reducing waiting time, people will be more likely to wait on the list (illegally immigrating will jeopardise your position on the list for citizenship), staying in Mexico instead of immigrating right now.

Conversely, even if this theory is bunk, at the very least we have switched the path of immigration from illegal to legal, with all the relevant benefits given on prior pages (black market elimination, increased border security, crime prevention, etc).

And I will absolutely guarantee that the borders will be easier to patrol against real criminals and terrorists sneaking in when the background noise of millions of peaceful and non-threatening people are removed from the picture and routed through legal border crossings.
– Warren Meyer

Quote :

"It amazes me even more that you "claim" to be a political science major...d'oh...I meant computer engineering."

My father is a professor teaching international political economy, something that has always fascinated me. However, it doesn't pay squat ($80K a year), so I went to computer engineering for the pay.

4/19/2006 9:25:53 AM

moron
What is your problem kid? You are young dumb and full of cum! My argument has been coherent since I started posting up here.

Quote :

"You went from saying that we shouldn't let them in because they're criminals, to we shouldn't let them in because we can't accommodate them."

False. I said that some of them are criminals. I made the estimate of 1/4 of their pop could possibly have criminal records. But the whole thing was an estimate based on an estimate, since we don't even know how many illegals are in this country. And It would make perfect since that this country could not accomodate another 12 million influx of illegals.

Quote :

"And we are by no means overcrowded (I can look out my window right now, and see hundreds of acres of forest, maybe thousands)"

Actually what you said was mindless and ridiculous. Why in the hell would we wait til the day when we look out side of our window, and everything looks like a damn "shantytown", and then say "well ok, guess we're over crowded now".

Where is this line drawn(12 million illegals is some line)? Why are these people being defended for breaking our laws, and flying their flags on our grounds?

4/19/2006 11:40:04 AM

10 years in this country and i still dont have green card, let alone citizenship. going through legal route is hard financially and mentally.

guess what is my opinion on giving illegal immigrants citizenship?

4/19/2006 1:09:57 PM

^If you have to suffer through it, they do too?

Also, is it citizenship they are wanting to give them, or residency?

4/19/2006 1:42:31 PM

padowack, check out my post. I think some of it is relevant to you.

4/19/2006 2:01:45 PM

I've never understood why legal immigrants despise illegal ones so much.

"Well I had to do it, so now you have to do it" is the sort of completely flawed "justification" that parents give kids for why they have to do lame, pointless shit. It's right up there with "Because I said so" on the list of things that have no business appearing in a reasonable debate.

What you should be wanting to do is to get rid of all these immigration laws, not punish people who got screwed over by them in a different way than you did.

Right now, let's offer everyone -- illegal immigrant, legal resident alien, green card carrier -- the chance to be a citizen, assuming they've been in the country long enough.

That's another thing that people are forgetting. Just because we legalize immigration doesn't mean that everyone would get to be a citizen overnight. They still have to wait a few years, during which time, if they screw up, we can put them on a bus home and flag them to keep them from re-entering.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2006 2:58:54 PM

I just got to this thread, and I skipped over the first few pages. Maybe this was discussed, but I didn't see this particular paper linked:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Mexicos_Glass_House.pdf

Quote :

"Mexico’s Glass House How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens By J. Michael Waller Introduction Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.1 Promulgated in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States. By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double-standards, examines the Mexican constitution’s protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy. Summary In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that: • Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse. • Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights. • Immigrants are denied equal employment rights. • Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens. • Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service. • Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy. • Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities. • Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process."

And it continues in a little bit of detail for each item. I just got this link, and haven't had a chance to check out the next ones in the series.

4/19/2006 3:59:52 PM

all the more reason to welcome the mexicans.
their country sucks.
hooray for political asylum

4/19/2006 4:34:12 PM

Holly! I had no idea how crappy Mexico's government was! It couldn't be more un-American if it tried!

Gosh damn. Imagine how few Railroads would have been built in this country is Foreigners were forbidden from owning land or companies (if a railroad company defaults the bond holders, nearly always of British citizenry, assume ownership of the company; without this ability, such foreign direct investment would almost never have taken place).

So much for the English system of law where Foreigners were entitled to equal consideration. Of course, the United States is no longer a practicioner as foreigners are forbidden from owners many types of property from oil wells to radio stations, to the detriment of all considered I assure you.

4/19/2006 5:00:14 PM

Quote :

"Pallet maker executives, workers arrested in immigration raids By MARK SHERMAN : Associated Press Writer Apr 19, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Immigration agents arrested seven executives and hundreds of employees of a manufacturer of crates and pallets Wednesday as part of a crackdown on employers of illegal workers. Authorities raided offices and plants of IFCO Systems in North Carolina and at least seven other states, the culmination of a yearlong criminal investigation, law enforcement officials said. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested seven current and former IFCO Systems managers on charges they conspired to transport, harbor and encourage illegal workers to reside in the United States for commercial advantage and private financial gain, said Glenn T. Suddaby, the chief federal prosecutor in Albany, N.Y., where some arrests were made. ICE spokeswoman Jamie Zuieback confirmed an unspecified number of raids and arrests, but declined to provide additional details because the investigation was continuing. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because numbers were still being tallied, said the arrests were in the hundreds. Raids took place at several locations in upstate New York and in Biglerville, Pa.; Charlotte, N.C.; Cincinnati, Houston, Phoenix, Richmond, Va., and Westborough, Mass. "ICE has no tolerance for corporate officers who harbor illegal aliens for their work force. Today's nationwide enforcement actions show how we will use all our investigative tools to bring these individuals to justice, no matter how large or small their company," said ICE chief Julie Myers. She and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff are expected on Thursday to lay out an immigration enforcement strategy that targets employers' disregard for immigration law. Last week, operators of three restaurants in Baltimore pleaded guilty to similar immigration charges, while nine people affiliated with two temporary employment agencies that do business in New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania were charged in a $5.3 million scheme involving the employment and harboring of illegal aliens. Several immigration proposals pending in Congress would stiffen penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants. German-based IFCO Systems describes itself as the leading pallet services company in the United States, focusing on recycling millions of the wooden platforms used to stack and move all manner of goods. It operates about five dozen facilities nationwide and has been expanding steadily, according to the company's Web site. IFCO Systems did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday. "

I would fine the hell out of this company.

4/19/2006 10:48:16 PM

^ On what grounds? It is the workers responsibility to pay income taxes.

4/19/2006 11:34:17 PM

Quote :

" on charges they conspired to transport, harbor and encourage illegal workers to reside in the United States for commercial advantage and private financial gain,"

those grounds

4/19/2006 11:36:23 PM

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 11:36 PM. Reason : this fucking mouse]

4/19/2006 11:36:23 PM

So are illegal immigrants an undue burden on the economy or not. Even if they are using services and not paying taxes, aren't they working for cheap cheap cheap? Does that "outweigh" everything else?

They're the closest we can get to slave labor, right?

4/22/2006 11:54:16 AM

Quote :

"They're the closest we can get to slave labor, right?"

Wait, how does one get close to slave labor? It is either slave labor or it is not slave labor.

I don't know that many people that risk death crossing a border illegally in order to become a slave.

4/22/2006 12:12:34 PM

and they generally AREN'T working for $3/hour or anything, PLUS it's generally under the table, so they aren't having taxes, social security, and medicare taken out.

4/22/2006 12:27:05 PM

If you legalize the workers, employers will no longer be able to pay them under the table. Simple math guys.

4/22/2006 12:33:03 PM

which is part of what I've been arguing

4/22/2006 12:33:58 PM

Or we could just scap the income tax for a value added tax, that would tax the bastards as well as every other under-the-table form of labor from crime to tax-evaders.

4/22/2006 2:19:42 PM

or simply legalize immigration

4/22/2006 3:01:53 PM

or both.

4/22/2006 6:56:05 PM