Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Near 12m illegal immigrants in the US (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Near 12m illegal immigrants in the US
Mannu
Knowflake

Posts: 45
From: always here and no where
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 15, 2009 12:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mannu     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
source: TOI
NEW YORK: There are an estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants in the US constituting four percent of the population, according to a study released Tuesday.

The study by the independent Pew Research Center, which is based on the data collected by the US Census Bureau till March 2008, says their children, both unauthorized immigrants themselves and those born in the US, make up about 6.8% of the total enrolment in elementary and secondary schools.

According to the study, more than 8.3 million of these illegal immigrants are languishing in low-paying jobs, accounting for 5.4% of the total labour force.

About 76% of all illegal immigrants are Hispanics, with Mexicans being the largest group at seven million.

Nearly 11% of undocumented immigrants come from Asia and Central America each, 7% from South America, 4% from the Caribbean and less than 2% from the Arab world, the study says.

With 2.7 million illegal immigrants, California has their largest population. Though the state's illegal population has almost doubled since 1990, its share of their total numbers has dropped from 42% to 22%.

Unlike in the past, according to the study, illegal immigrants are now evenly spread across the US.

Though California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas remain their favourite destinations, Georgia, North Carolina and other southeastern states too now attract them in large numbers, the study says. Since undocumented immigrants are exploited by employers, their median household income is $36,000, well below the $50,000 for US residents. As a result, one third of the children born in illegal immigrant families live in poverty, according to the study.

Illegal immigration in the US has been a complicated problem for years now, with both the Democrats and the Republicans soft-pedaling the issue. Open borders with Mexico, lack of border patrols and cheap labour for US employers even though it is illegal to hire them are the major factors for the rising illegal immigration population in the US.

Since President Ronald Reagan had granted one-time amnesty to about three million illegal immigrants in 1986, their population has unofficially risen to 20 million in hopes of getting legal status one day.

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 15, 2009 04:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Open borders with Mexico, lack of border patrols and cheap labour for US employers even though it is illegal to hire them are the major factors for the rising illegal immigration population in the US.

But then people argue that if nobody hires them, it's our fault they're poor. Imo, people who employ illegal immigrants should face much worse charges because they are blatantly exploiting those people (shockingly low wages and no benefits or security) and at the same time those illegal immigrants are exploiting the rest of our taxpayers.


When are we going to get to the crux of the issue? Which is ... why are so many millions of people risking their lives to live in poverty in the US instead of staying in their own countries? These people are not coming to the US just because they love apple pie and Springsteen, you know.


How can anyone argue that the US is obligated to take in the poor, the needy, the oppressed from all nations and yet never have a say in what goes on in those nations? If it's not our business, then don't make it our business. Close the damned borders or accept the fact that the nations these people are fleeing from have got serious problems which they are responsible for fixing. And if we have to step in to help their people, then they better be open to negotiations with us regarding what those fixes need to be.

So far it's been ... "yeah, well, who cares how bad things are in Central and South America and the Carribean? Evil Americans, you have to take in all refugees at your own expense and don't you dare complain about how those tyrants, I mean leaders, run their countries. That's not your business. Your US $$$ is all that matters and it's their business."


Oh, and, for the "it's all America's fault that those nations are in such bad shape" arguments ... let's not forget that it was the British, the French and the Spanish who began it all and who for centuries had their big fat part in this so-called destruction. Hardly any native peoples remain in Mexico; most had their blood mixed, unwillingly at that, with the Spaniards. Where's Spain's bailout for Mexico and all the other Latin American countries they conquered?

IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
unregistered
posted April 15, 2009 09:25 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
here's an idea, lets take our tax money and provide them all with healthcare and social security benifits (without a social security number, ok), lets also give them food stamps so they can eat real good, better than me i guess, becasue over 30 percent of my paycheck is taxed and i spend another 30 percent on more tax as i fillup my car, buy a pack of smokes. lets see that leaves me with about 30 percent of my paycheck to live on and pay my cell phone bill, with a usage tax, my heating bill with a fuel tax, and when i die if i have 20 bucks left over for my kids, they are planning to tax that too.
i don't want to support persons who are in this country illegally. i am tired. tired of working to the bone to make my taxes and see them in front of me in krogers with a bridge card buying the biggest steak in the store.

enough is enough. there are legal ways to apply for citizenship.

the schools they are enrolled in do not have enough money to keep toilet paper in the bathrooms, how long can we afford to support non taxpaying citizens?

also, i want to say, eleanore, you made some excellent points.

IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
unregistered
posted April 15, 2009 09:50 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We truly don't have jobs for them, unemployment TRUTH around 35 %.

Measuring unemployment is an art that can result in widely varied rates. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Government uses a method that excludes millions of Americans seeking employment. This lower rate is used to prove that America’s economic system is superior to those in Europe. Their higher unemployment rates are blamed on unions and socialism, which guarantee workers health care and paid vacations. The implication is that while many American workers lack such benefits, at least they have jobs. This argument is faulty since unemployment is measured differently.

In the USA, 35% of healthy Americans ages 16-64 are unemployed, but what does that word mean? Millions of women are unemployed as they choose to stay home to raise families. Nevertheless, 25% of healthy American men ages 16-64 are unemployed, yet the U.S. Government reports an unemployment rate of just 8.1%.[1]

The 25% rate is from an annual federal survey last conducted in June 2008, well before the current economic slump added millions to the “official” unemployment rate of 8.1% for March 6, 2009. The 25% rate is the ratio of healthy American men ages 16-64 not working. This is misleading because it includes the two million Americans behind bars, while most 16 and 17-year olds remain in school. It also includes millions of Americans who voluntarily retire before age 65 and house-husbands who care for children while their wife works.

Nevertheless, an honest man would count anyone who would like to work as unemployed. The U.S. Government compiles data on these uncounted unemployed Americans, but does not mention it in news releases. It can be found in Table A-12 on the Department of Labor’s website where it shows an unemployment rate of 16% for Feb. 2009.[2] It explains why these unemployed Americans are not included in their official unemployment rate:

“Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.”

In typical government doublespeak, it notes they are not “looking for work” but want work and “have looked for work in the recent past.” As a result, these people who want to work are not counted as unemployed. This 16% figure does not include a few million Americans who excluded by the survey parameters for these reasons:

-Students seeking work are never counted as unemployed. So anyone taking college classes at night and seeking a full-time day job is not counted as unemployed.

-Pensioners seeking work are never counted as unemployed. This includes those who receive a minimal monthly pension because they retired early, often forcibly. Soldiers in the U.S. military can retire with a small pension as young as age 37, yet they must find work to support their family. However, they are classified as retired and not counted as unemployed.

-Anyone seeking a full-time job who works a few unpaid hours a week at a family farm or small business is not counted as unemployed.

-People seeking their first job, such as recent high school and college graduates, and housewives are excluded. The logic is that since they were never employed, they are not unemployed.

These games allow the U.S. Government to report a current unemployment rate of just 8.1%, even though its own data of unemployed Americans who want to work indicates an unemployment rate of around 20%. This should concern all Americans because the unemployed burden society by collecting welfare or resorting to crime. A recent surge in Social Security Disability claims indicates another path the desperate unemployed are seeking.
Temp Jobs

The Obama administration is boosting economic activity with a massive spending package that will add two million jobs. Unfortunately, most of these are temporary jobs. President Obama and the U.S. Congress have dismissed the idea of a future stimulus since this year’s trillion dollar spending package has resulted in objections from America’s major creditors.

While America’s trade balance improved as Americans spend less, foreign nations hold trillions of dollars in American notes and bonds. China is the largest creditor, and has openly stated that it would like to reduce its holdings of dollar-based securities. The U.S. Congress has appropriated a trillion dollars in extra spending for 2009, yet most of the money has not been spent so the U.S. Treasury has yet to borrow all the funds.

There were concerns the Treasury would have to offer sharply higher interest rates to attract enough money to cover this year’s planned borrowing. Concerns ended when the U.S. Federal Reserve recently announced that it would buy another $300 billion in U.S. Treasuries.[3] The Fed can create all the money it desires with a few computer keystrokes, which is normally described as “the power of the printing press.” This made foreigners uneasy and dollar fell sharply.

Unemployment is expected to increase this year, despite the benefits of the current economic stimulus. Moreover, these jobs are temporary while the economy is threatened by a continued decline in home prices, a fall in commercial real estate values, and increasing consumer bankruptcies. As a result, the Obama administration must look at other options to increase employment.
American Jobs for American Workers

President Obama can instantly create 65,000 high-paying jobs for Americans each year by eliminating the H1-B visa program. An Internet search turns up hundreds of stories about corporate abuse of this program. It allows them to import skilled workers without proving they are unable to find American workers. Thousands of Americans have been laid off after corporations imported foreign workers, who are paid less and can’t complain about long hours because their work visa is only valid for the corporation that sponsored them. In cases where shortages of skilled American workers exist, like nursing, federal money should be devoted to training Americans.

Over 500,000 jobs would open for U.S. citizens if visa programs for unskilled foreign workers are eliminated. H2 work visas have been issued for decades at the request of major corporations, who claim that a shortage of American labor hampers their operations. There is obviously no labor shortage now, so visas should no longer be issued. Running these programs requires intensive manpower to review and conduct background checks of applicants, and to ensure that employers do not abuse their “indentured servants.”[4] If this burden were eliminated, Department of Labor employees could help American citizens find work with these corporations.

Corporate interests pressured the Bush administration to encourage the flow of illegal cheap labor over the southern border with amnesty efforts and limited enforcement. As the recent stimulus package was debated, some Congressmen expressed concern that up to 300,000 of the estimated two million jobs it would create may go to illegal aliens. However, Democratic leadership in Congress stripped a measure requiring employers who receive stimulus money to use the new federal Internet-based E-Verify program to ensure they hire only legal workers.[5] While this was explained as concern for minorities, it will deny jobs to thousands of poor minorities who are U.S. citizens.

Campaign contributions from corporations to keep cheap labor flowing is the real reason the millionaires occupying seats in Congress favor open borders. While compassion for desperate foreign economic refugees is understandable, every job they fill is a job denied to a poor American citizen. With 25% of American men ages 16-64 not working, it is impossible to argue that workers cannot be found. To evade debate, corporate spinmasters invented a derogatory term for those who believe Americans should be given preference for American jobs -- Nativists. This implies they are anti-immigrant, racist, and ignorant, so rational dialogue is unnecessary.

Given the dismal economic situation in Mexico, President Obama is foolish to encourage more illegal immigration with talks of another amnesty, disguised as “immigration reform.” Requiring employers use the simple E-verify system would open millions of jobs for citizens and encourage illegal immigrants to return home. A study of factories raided by U.S. Immigration enforcement in 2006 found that illegal workers were promptly replaced by higher paid legal workers.[6]

The federal government could create thousands of good jobs for American citizens by pressuring federal agencies and contractors to hire U.S. citizens when possible. The State Department staffs most its embassies with foreign workers. Some of this is necessary because of language requirements, but in most cases it is easier or cheaper to hire locals. Even if Americans must pay relocation expenses, the State Department could fill thousands of positions with Americans. The Department of Defense employs thousands of foreigners at its overseas bases; some 18,000 in South Korea alone. It should review each position with the idea of hiring U.S. citizens for these jobs, even if costs are slightly higher. A better idea is to close hundreds of outdated Cold War military bases overseas and move those jobs and related spending back to the USA.[7]
Tweaking the Workforce

There are systemic methods to reduce unemployment. For example, France cut its workweek to 35 hours, with the idea that employers must hire more people. The results are difficult to measure. Economists and businessmen prefer to measure success based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but that is a measure of economic activity, not quality of life. For example, the U.S. Government could boost GDP, reduce spending, and improve productivity by eliminating the 12 federal holidays, which provide paid days off for half of American workers. The economic benefits are indisputable, yet American workers would object to this “improvement.”

At one time, elderly Americans had their social security payments reduced if they continued working. This saved the system money and discouraged them from working, which opened jobs for younger workers. This was unpopular and eliminated as unfair, but it should be resurrected. A law that would ban social security retirement payments to anyone earning over $2000 a month in wages would save billions of dollars annually. This would be unpopular, but those who continue working in higher-paying jobs past age 65 do not need social security “retirement” checks. Those who object can retire so their job opens for others.


Some 20% of Americans are unemployed and want to work. As this number grows, governments are burdened by greater welfare costs and higher crime rates, while the unemployed pay little in taxes. Moreover, mass unemployment threatens the lives of all Americans with more crime, riots, and possibly a violent revolution. President Obama must demonstrate the leadership to help enact laws unpopular with small groups in order to help the entire nation.

[1] “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey”, U.S. Dept. of Labor, June 2008.

[2] “Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization”, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Mar. 6, 2009.

[3] “Dollar plunges after Fed plan to buy Treasurys", MarketWatch, Mar. 18, 2009.

[4] “Indentured Servants, Circa 2009”, Consortium News, Mar. 18, 2009.

[5] “More Puget Sound area employers are checking if workers are legal”, Seattle Times, Mar. 15, 2009.

[6] “Study shows wages rose after immigration raids”, The Hill, Mar. 18, 2009.

[7] “The Generals Have No Clothes”, SRA, Nov. 25, 2008.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 15, 2009 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes, eleanore, and sunshine, some excellent points. but as someone who lives in california, a little of the OTHER side (as usual!) of the picture.

a) many many hispanics believe that california, texas, and other border states were TAKEN FROM THEM and that they have every right to be here. they just don't have social security cards.
b) so they use someone else's social security card to work. taxes are deducted from those minimum wages, taxes and social security and medicare tax, etc WHICH THEY WILL NEVER GET THE BENEFITS for BUT THE TAX POOL DOES.
c) the immigration laws and the way the INS operates are ridiculous and often unconstitutional. our jails are weighed down by holding people who could either be given citizenship or deported. do you know that the average cost of a prisoner is about $30,000/year?
d) when you are used to living on next to nothing, 36 grand is quite a lot of money. of course you have to be willing to buy low cost which many of us consider beneath us...
d) we make it very hard for people to become citizens. one young man i know, father a naturalized citizen, came here at age 11, and at 18 a girl he had upset fingered him for statutory rape (later DISproven) for which he went to jail - where he was collected by the INS and held for TWO YEARS while he tried to prove his right to citizenship. HE ONLY GOT OUT BECAUSE PERIODICALLY THE INS GIVES IN TO PRESSURE FROM INTEREST GROUPS TO unburden our penetentiary system. other people BORN here are denied citizenship by the system too.

once more this is no black-and-white case. i understand that america is a mecca for the underprivileged, in fact it is the cheap immigrant labour that made the big guys rich! and that a lot of those jobs could be done by americans, but hey, wait, americans consider $36K/year poverty. so unless robots come in big time, who is going to do that work? children?

edit: i'm not advocating for benefits for illegal immigrants. but the way the system works right now - doesn't work and costs us a fortune while putting a lot of people in limbo, either at large or in jails that are already too full.

IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
unregistered
posted April 15, 2009 03:22 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
this land is your land, this land is my land...

they should do what the native americans did and open casinos just over the border.


seriously, lots and lots of people would work a 36,000 job and consider themselves lucky. maybe not in cali, but the cost of living is considerably higher there than most places in the country.

i have a neice that turns a "it's your turn to go" sign for road construction out there for 36.50 per hour. we in michigan and ohio consider that pretty dam good for a sign turner.

what do i know, i am about the only person left working here and feel dam lucky to still have my job inthis economy. every 12 seconds a family is leaving michigan. oops, there went another one. WE need our jobs. need them.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 15, 2009 03:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i think there are quite a few casinos in mexico!

"Since undocumented immigrants are exploited by employers, their median household income is $36,000, well below the $50,000 for US residents. As a result, one third of the children born in illegal immigrant families live in poverty, according to the study."

from mannu's post up the page. so someone considers this poverty level.

personally i haven't earned 36,000 since my grandson turned one! and i do just fine even in california. of course i am older, have pretty much everything i need, so my expenses are low. i could easily SPEND a great deal more if i had it but i don't need it and don't consider myself impoverished. and before you say i am a single person, i have contributed a good deal towards this child's upbringing.

of course i can't afford private schools, designer shoes, hairdressers, but i eat organic, my car's in good shape and i have a place of my own to call ever so humble...AND i have my health, and a profession that people will trade services for, and i live in a GORGEOUS place.

hey, i wonder what california pays sign-turners?? i would probably last about two days in a job like that....

IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
unregistered
posted April 15, 2009 04:03 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
probobly right about the casino thing, but i dont know if them just taking over so-cal and calling it thiers is cool. that is why we have borders.

that is california she is turning signs in. 36.50 per hour.

you do live in a gorgeous place.

jobs here are scarce. i know lots and lots of people that would be glad to scrub commodes for 36,000 a year. things are not like they used to be.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 15, 2009 05:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
no, its not cool, i agree entirely. i am not defending THOSE hispanics. whose motto is "we make more babies than you, its just a matter of time!" edit: in fact i am not defending anyone. however it is a misconception that ALL illegal immigrants are untaxed, since MANY of them use a valid SS card, paying taxes into someone else's account, not a bad deal for the govt or the person whose card it is...

well, there should be a bunch of govt jobs coming up and they tend to be secure and well-paying! i hate to admit it but my grandfather retired from his counterintelligence wartime job and went straight into the spanking new IRS. his family went without very little during the depression.

and i do hope (and suspect) that you can see the tongue in my cheek!

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 15, 2009 08:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
question on this subject for jwhop...though it was on the tea party thread you mentioned that the mexicans have no claim to the SW because of the purchase of that land by us...but you obviously feel that it is not okay for the powers-that-be to carve up the US NOW. (the idea of parcelling pieces off to other countries).

i am NOT defending either illegal immigrants or la raza; but were their ancestors not in the very same position that we would be in if the rumoured carving-up were to go ahead? having our home sold out from under us?

can you explain the difference? and can we not see that we are all humans with rather high emotions on this subject?

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 16, 2009 01:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
It is sheer bullshiiit there are some in the US...like La Raza, which means...The Race via The Reconquista Movement, who are attempting to return the American Southwest to Mexico. Not going to happen.

According to their nonsense, the US should return the Louisiana Purchase to France. Oh, and also the states of South Carolina and Florida to Spain. What nonsense.

The American Southwest was PURCHASED from Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase.

All those who are attempting to wrest control over any part of the US and turn it over to another nation...or set up an independent state should be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished for treason against the United States...or deported back to where ever they came from.


- Jwhop on the "tea party" thread


And you brought up the same issue here, katatonic, regarding Mexicans who think the Southwest US is theirs.

Here's my problem with this argument and don't forget I'm half Mexican.

First off, multiple wars were fought over that land. And then we purchased it. How is that stealing when we paid them for it?

Secondly, it isn't as though they sprouted out of the land here. They were immigrants, too. And over the course of time, as more people migrated, tribes were set at war with each other. There is no record of who was here first and those who remained before the Europeans came had already been fighting territorial wars for years. The US pre-Europeans was no Arcadia. It was a bloody, battleworn and battle won land. Since they, the apparant survivors and thus "winners" took the lands also by force how can they claim that they really "own" it? Pot, meet Kettle.


Following on those points ... what countries exist that were not established through the course of wars? [I don't think we want to use Israel as an example since, even though the Jews didn't fight anyone for the land, some people still question their claim to that land and bomb them for it.] Seriously, we'd have to pack everyone up in the world and dump us all in Africa, the supposed "mother" land for all humans.

And then what? We peacefully dole out parcels to this or that group? By what right? Who decides? The nimrods at the UN? It's a very sad fact that the entire world and its people have been fighting wars since the very beginning and through these wars, lands were won and lost. Period.

Hypothetically, if the land was returned ... unless their plan is to send all mixed blood Mexicans over to Spain and retain only those with "pure" Indian blood they're just full of it.

Also, if we lost our senses and the land itself were returned, 1) we'd need a refund for what we paid for it and 2) they still wouldn't have a right to be Americans just because. That land could go back to Mexico but the friggin' welfare, etc. belongs to US and it has nothing to do with the land mass itself. The USA was never theirs and along with that goes all the money and benefits they feel entitled to.

The whole basis for their argument is ridiculous. They're simply playing on America's white guilt. And I can't believe people fall for it.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 16, 2009 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"The American Southwest was PURCHASED from Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase.

All those who are attempting to wrest control over any part of the US and turn it over to another nation...or set up an independent state should be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished for treason against the United States...or deported back to where ever they came from."

yes i brought it up here where the topic actually fits it. my point is not that we should welcome illegal immigrants but that they are people too and if it was okay for us to buy THEIR country, it follows BY LOGIC that it is okay for others to buy OURS.

i'm not saying i want this to happen. i am encouraging a neutral viewpoint.

as you say, we are ALL immigrants. and MOST illegal immigrants are NOT working under the table, but on someone else's SS card. so OUR government is taking taxes from them which is to OUR benefit, not theirs.

the system is, you might say, a little effed up!

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 17, 2009 08:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with Eleanore and as another Hispanic female I will add my opinion. I am from (born and raised) in Southern California (Orange County) and being that my father was not only a police officer but then went on to become and retire from a state Narcotics agency (as an agent), I have some perspective on the damage done by cartels and illegal immigration.

Illegals not only tax the system (just look at how many times we as Californian's voted AGAINST providing free care to illegals) but they also bring in violence when smuggling drugs /people. Neighborhoods are destroyed as was the case with the upper middle class condo complex where my mother lived and soon Coyotes began to buy up homes to house their many illegals that still had to work off their debt.

Crime raises, drug use / dealing increases and gang violence begins to evolve and an alarming rate. Unfortunately, it is not only hard working people coming over in order to provide a better life, horrible criminals and gang bangers also come through in order to take advantage of our system.

I also lived for years and plan to retire with Bear the Leo in Cochise County, AZ where I lived and worked in a bioterrorism / binational response team with Mexico (we were only 4-9 miles from the border). I witnessed the problems with illegals coming through the land, killing cattle, destroying the environment (TONS of trash) and over burdening the health care system to the point where hospitals closed down and only ONE in the county can deliver babies.

But, I am not an expert. I am a concerned citizen (and legally a resident / voter of Cochise County, AZ) and I am all for stopping illegal immigration for what I have seen with my own eyes and what it has done to the economy.

Something has to be done and done soon to curb the problems that are caused on an environmental and economic levels.

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 18, 2009 05:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mannu are you one of them?

IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake

Posts: 45
From: always here and no where
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 24, 2009 11:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mannu     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hehe..you almost had the last word for so many days.

Great try, no I am not one of them.
But I do know someone .

I am split on this immigration issue. Hence the * in the original post dear.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2863
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not exactly "the other side of the argument" katatonic. At best, it's another phony argument.

The American South West was PURCHASED from Mexico...Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Gadsten Purchase and Mexican nationals there were granted US citizenship. Neither did they lose their farms, ranches and lands as a result of the PURCHASE from Mexico.

Most illegal aliens do not have social security numbers...theirs or anyone else's. They work under the table and don't pay social security taxes or income taxes. Nevertheless, they are getting free education for their children, free medical, food stamps and in many cases...in democrat controlled states...like California, they also vote...illegally.

I'm all for deporting them all.

In the alternative, I would round them all up, house them in the famous..to conspiracy theorists...FEMA detention camps, educate them in the benefits of American representative government, give them military training, give them all AK-47's and 1000 rounds of ammunition and then deport them back to Mexico to create the kind of system they find attractive enough to break American law when they sneak across the US border.

IP: Logged

cpn_edgar_winner
unregistered
posted April 25, 2009 11:21 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
one of the resons i like you jwhops. i think it, you say it. ONLY SOMETIMES! don't let it go to your head. politically correct is for wussies sometimes.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2863
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 12:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Aye, Aye Cpn. But, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that I thought it first...a long time ago.

I understand your exalted rank inhibits you from speaking plainly and if you did, the Speech Nazis would try to get you busted back down into the enlisted ranks.

Lastly, I think you adopted that user name to pull rank on the rest of us lowly enlisted here.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 12:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmmmmm.... I would like to see more about this debate..

I would also be remiss if I did not add that something else that travels with illegals, because they do not get checked by health department officials and banned if they carry specific diseases.. is well Tuberculosis, HIV and other diseases.

Now we have a swine flu that originated from Mexico that can easily become a pandemic (which I am still on the fence about due to all the variables concerning lifestyle and healthcare systems being so different in the US and Mexico) but if those carrying the swine flu enter in illegally and start infecting various populations, it can affect the US as a whole.

It is too soon to tell because so far those that have traveling to Mexico have not had the illness.. but we need to track how it came into the country and how those in CA / TX were exposed. Hmmm.... things to ponder about.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 01:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
well here's an alternative solution for you. legalize hemp, demonized by dupont to rule out competition for petroleum based plastics, etc, and presto! one of our immigrant problems, the drug trade, disappears almost overnight.

as for the rest you lot are so well informed i will just let you carry on sweating it.

but i would like an answer to my question - if it was okay for us to buy the southwest from mexico, why is it not okay for them to buy it back, or for us to give it back for that matter? i am not assuming a position, but this is a question of logic.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 01:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Kat,

I don't think they have the money to buy it back. Not to mention they are not in the position at this point to do so. Even if they had the money, TX, AZ, NM and CA would have to vote on it. Since AZ is my home of record.. I would vote NO..

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 02:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
well this is all hypothetical. i was talking about logic...and if there is any truth in the rumour that the "they" have already decided to carve up and dole out portions of the country, your vote wouldn't mean much...so, HYPOTHETICALLY, what is the difference between us buying their country out from under them, and them doing same to us?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2863
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hahaha, there isn't enough oil in Mexico...or wealth to buy the state of Arizona...let alone the entire South West.

Another nonsense argument.

Btw, if or when the bloviating chair warming morons in the Congress and/or White House decide to sell off America or pieces thereof, they better have a well stocked steel vault to hide out in..and, whoever comes to possess US territory better wear their armored underwear.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6066
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 02:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
once more, jw, you are mistaking a question for an argument.

i could be wrong but i believe it was you who brought up this subject of the planned "american union" or whatever the supposed name is. this is not a taking-sides question, really, just trying to establish some parameters...and there are a lot of americans already living in mexico as you probably know, so they are unlikely to be arguing much about it...

anyway you (i think) brought up this supposed plan to carve the states up and parcel them out to various foreign powers, and i mentioned that a lot of mexicans might feel similarly about how WE took over THEIR territory way back when. you appear to think it was legit when we did it but won't be if someone else does and i would like to know why? just because you don't agree? or is there a QUALITATIVE difference here that i am missing??

i would appreciate clarification, and clarification only, without insults or assuming i am being devious or disingenuous. est-ce possible??

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2863
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2009 03:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your argument...and it is an "argument" is a non starter.

The United States DID NOT take over Mexican territory. We bought it which is entirely legitimate. Just as we bought Florida from Spain and most of the Midwest from France. Remember the Louisiana Purchase?

We're not giving Florida back to Spain, not giving the American Midwest back to France and not giving the American Southwest back to Mexico. Nor are we going to let a bunch of carping, whining, in fact, foreign nationals who by an accident of birth are US citizens but who owe their loyalty to Mexico either seize the Southwest or otherwise wrest control of the American Southwest away from the United States.

If they have a problem with that, let them take it up with General Antonio López de Santa Anna.

In the meantime, if they don't knock it off, we should support an action to cede Mexico back to Spain from whom it was stolen...not purchased.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a