Immigration

S832

New member
Quiet the opposite, my views fit perfectly.

Let no one else in, deport all those who are here illegally - then correct all the current social and economic problems in the US which were caused by the huge influx of low-skilled people. The government's purpose as I stated before, is to further the interests of the American citizen, to help its people - not foreigners wanting to come here.
 

moddek

New member
maybe you can hire some mexicans and chinese to build that 100 foot tall wall that is gonna be nessisary to make you happy
 

Jeffenwulf

New member
I'll help voluntarily, no need to pay me.

The people that believe that hard work or menial labor is beneath a CITIZEN of the United States are idiots. That's nothing but an excuse to continue to do absolutely nothing about illegal immigrants. We will always have people in the U.S. that are going to do absolutely nothing no matter what the job or how much the pay simply because they're worthless. Every country, race, religion, or whatever in the world is going to have that small group that does nothing but use air. Don't point to that group to say the rest of us won't work or won't do a job that actually requires manual labor. It's insulting and stupid.
 

Buzzcook

New member
To quote John McCain "Americans won't pick lettuce for fifty dollars an hour."

Cheap labor has been official American policy since colonial times.

One of the things people miss is that this includes skilled and white collar jobs.
We have many "guest" workers in the software industry who have restrictive visas that keep them working at well below industry standards for American workers doing similar jobs. It stems from an erroneous report that there was a shortage in the field. There were plenty of Americans for those jobs, it was just that the were older workers that could command higher wages.
Even though the false report about a labor shortage had been discovered; proponents of cheap labor were able to force new immigration laws through congress using the discredited information.

That happened with a republican controlled congress but the same thing happens with the pantie waist democrats in control.

Nafta of course made coming to America attractive to many Mexican agricultural laborers. With Mexican protections removed cheap (and heavily subsidized) American agricultural products swamped the Mexican market.
Workers move to where the work is, ask an Okie.

Many years ago Mexican laborers were migratory. Coming to work in the US seasonally and going back to Mexico in the off season.
New immigration laws have made that life style much more difficult so many Mexican workers have opted to stay in America. Because of this Mexicans have been encroaching in fields that they earlier hadn't been in.

It's not a bug it's a feature.

This is class warfare, and so far the working class is losing.
 

Adrian

New member
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

It's part of our national poetry, or at least I thought it was.

Naturally, the country has changed a lot in the hundred years since we made it part of Lady Liberty, but it's changed even more since 1791, too, hasn't it?

I don't have a really set position on the issue, but decisions in the mirror may be harder than they appear.
 

S832

New member
It's part of our national poetry, or at least I thought it was.

Naturally, the country has changed a lot in the hundred years since we made it part of Lady Liberty, but it's changed even more since 1791, too, hasn't it?

I don't have a really set position on the issue, but decisions in the mirror may be harder than they appear.

When those words were written we didn't have 300+ million people in America, along with all the other technological and economic changes.

The constitution's interpretation/application has also changed and been adjusted to fit modern times. People can't go down and pickup a RPG launcher at Quicke-Mart, and I for one am thankful of that.

Ideals are great, but when it comes to survival - reality sets in and takes precedent.
 

Adrian

New member
S832 said:
When those words were written we didn't have 300+ million people in America, along with all the other technological and economic changes.

The constitution's interpretation/application has also changed and been adjusted to fit modern times. People can't go down and pickup a RPG launcher at Quicke-Mart, and I for one am thankful of that.

Ideals are great, but when it comes to survival - reality sets in and takes precedent.

That seems like a reasonable sort of argument, and I don't think very many people are suggesting that we throw the gates wide open. I think I'm more worried about people who would stop immigration entirely, or work towards that end - the same way we're worried about people who would ban all guns, or work towards that end.

Incidentally, "most" doctors, scientists, and engineers may be "from Western descent", but it's a slim margin, and I doubt it's likely to hold for very long. Particularly, Asian-Americans, mostly first- and second- generation immigrants, make up 20-40% of the student body at most national-level universities, and generally congregate in the hard sciences. I graduated a few years ago, but in most of my classes, the "western" students were positively outnumbered. That's not bad for 4-5% of the population, huh?
 
Last edited:

S832

New member
You can't really compare guns and immigration.

You have to look at the gain verses loss, most Americans gain nothing from letting more people into this country but they stand to lose allot.
 

Adrian

New member
S832 said:
You have to look at the gain verses loss, most Americans gain nothing from letting more people into this country but they stand to lose allot.

"You have to look at the gain versus loss. Most Americans gained nothing from the AWB expiration, but they stood to lose a lot."

About 25% of Americans own firearms, but how many were 1911s and hunting rifles that the AWB didn't touch in the first place? How many people materially benefitted from its expiration? How many millions of dollars disappeared into thin air when the market price of AR-15s came back down to earth? Sounds like a parallel argument to me.

On the other side of things, just off the top of my head.

Yahoo! founder Jerry Yang and Google founder Sergey Brin both immigrated as children (Yang from Taiwan, Brin from the Soviet Union).
Jensen Huang (one-third of the Nvidia founding team) is from Taiwan, and both of the ATI founders were Chinese immigrants (one from Hong Kong, which was technically British territory at the time, but still).
Americans have been awarded won seven of the eight 21st-century IEEE Medals of Honor (Tadahiro Sekimoto of Japan won it in 2004). Three of the winners have been immigrants (Herwig Kogelnik, 2001, from Austria with a stop in England; Herbert Kroemer, 2002, from Germany; Thomas Kailath, 2007, from India).
Immigrants are over 50% more likely to start their own businesses than native-born Americans.

Just as with gun ownership, the costs of immigration can be obvious, while the benefits might be much less so. It's a harder, greyer issue than it looks at first glance, from either side of the fence.
 
Last edited:

S832

New member
Again those aren't really direct benefits to Americans anymore so then any other company, they are simply people who made money. Bill Gates did the same thing and made far more.

More loss will come from immigration then gain, the only place this country can head is downhill from here for the average citizen if this continues.

When you sum up the worlds wealth and distribute it evenly throughout the population, the standard of living decreases significantly in first world countries. That generally is what is occurring in America as more people come in, more money isn't made, the current money just continues to be distributed and the amount each person makes becomes less and less.
 

Darren007

New member
All the people coming in are from 3rd world countries, not 1st. We are acting as the worlds homeless shelter. We should only allow immigration from countries with an equal standard of living to the US, equal pay and similar culture.

I want to see the US population go down to 100 million, if we kept all the 3rd world immigrants out thats completely possible to achieve.

Great!!! As a decent of the Lakota Sioux, could you kindly pack your bags and take your butt back to the "old world" so we can have our land back.:rolleyes:
 

S832

New member
America prior to its founding wasn't a country, it was nothing but a grouping of tribes.

They are incomparable.

But even if they were, just because you allowed yourselves to be destroyed doesn't mean we should.
 

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
S832 said:
You can't really compare guns and immigration.
Way past time I said something here.

Both gun-control and immigration quotas, oh heck - immigration in general, had their start in the racist attitudes of white European descended Americans. There are no buts, ifs or ands about that dirty little fact.

And just like today, gun control and immigration are still based somewhat on race - although it is more of a class thing, nowadays - just like gun control. Another dirty little fact no one seems to want to address.

So how we got from there to here, can in fact be compared.
Adrian said:
Just as with gun ownership, the costs of immigration can be obvious, while the benefits might much less so. It's a harder, greyer issue than it looks at first glance, from either side of the fence.
Exactly.

S832, I find your arguments, troubling at best.
 

S832

New member
Control is good, laws exist for self preservation - without them we would have nothing.

I will sacrifice some freedom in order to sustain my existence.

Like I said before you look at gain verses loss, gun control when applied correctly has a positive outcome.

The same applies for immigration, look at what is being lost verses what is being gained, the average American is on the losing side of this.

I care about the people in this country more then I care about the people outside of it, so should the government. Americans come first.
 

Adrian

New member
S832 said:
Again those aren't really direct benefits to Americans anymore so then any other company, they are simply people who made money.

Google and Yahoo haven't made your life better? AltaVista was more than good enough for you? Heck, even that one was written by immigrants - Louis Monier emmigrated from France and Michael Burrows from England. You haven't played any video games lately that took advantage of high-power graphics hardware, or seen any movies with computer-effects better than Tron?

I picked inventors and engineers for a reason; they aren't "simply people who made money." They take the great American advantages - our education system and entrepreneurial spirit - and let us do things that we couldn't do before. They create wealth. Google wouldn't exist without Sergey Brin, or without the United States. It's the combination of the two - the right people in the right environment - that makes it possible.

On the other hand, in certain respects, you are right. The world can't all afford to live like Americans, and too much influx, too fast, is hard for a nation to absorb.

I've said it before; it's more complicated than it looks.
 
Last edited:

JuanCarlos

New member
Just as with gun ownership, the costs of immigration can be obvious, while the benefits might much less so. It's a harder, greyer issue than it looks at first glance, from either side of the fence.

This. A million times this.

Come one, come all, but come legally.

Why have immigration laws? What is their objective?

Exactly...if your attitude is really "come one, come all" (but legally, of course) then you also have to support doing away with quotas...because quotas essentially tell some given number of potential immigrants that they will not likely, in their lifetime, ever get a chance to immigrate here legally.

After doing away with quotas, there may still be some use for laws...but again, not under a true "come one, come all" attitude. For instance, you wouldn't necessarily want to let people with certain infectious diseases immigrate, or with certain criminal records, or several other detrimental conditions. But it's reasonable to assume that even those in favor of more or less unrestricted immigration would admit the need for these restrictions.


Aside from that, though, I think we definitely have a use for legal immigrants, and possibly even at a significantly higher level than we currently allow. I think we could afford to legally allow immigration at the same rate (per capita) that Canada allows, or perhaps higher...but it would probably help if we applied the same kind of standards that Canada applies. Ever visit their immigration website? They run on a points system, with a minimum required for immigration (and I'd wager that higher scores lead to higher priority). Things like education, work experience, a pre-existing job offer within Canada, understanding of English and/or French (including separate points for literacy in either or both), etc.

Of course, the problem with that is that it's not entirely unlikely that such a system would disqualify a large portion of those actually looking to come here. Particularly from points south. *shrug*
 

S832

New member
Adrian, those people that you listed did have an effect, they saw an opportunity and took it, but the goal is for profit. People come here because they want to gain something.

JuanCarlos, You don't see massive European immigration into America, because they have no reason to. Immigration is coming from the worst places, not the best(consequently they bring all the problems from their old country with them).

I am OK with limited immigration to/from countries which are equal to the US, but immigration from third/second world countries needs to be cut off.

The huge number of people immigrating, flooding the job market, destroying the economy, significantly increasing the US population, increasing the consumption of natural resources and destroying the environment - is not acceptable to me nor should it be acceptable to any American.
 
Last edited:

44 AMP

Staff
An awful lot depends on how you define things...

"Immigrant" for example. There are people that argue that we are a nation of immigrants, and that is true, not just for our nation, but for virtually all nations, if you go back far enough.

Other than a few stone age tribes in ultra remote portions of the world, ALL nations existing today have been built from sucessive immigrations. Usually at the point of a sword, lance, spear, or arrow. Choose any country you wish, and go back in their history and you will find at least one example of "indigenous" peoples being forced out or slaughtered, or, at best, absorbed into the culture of the invaders.

Whether or not a people are "native" to any region is simply a matter of the time scale you use when making the judgement. The American Indian, now called "Native Americans" (a term I detest by the way) came from somewhere else. At least that is what science teaches today. To me, "native Americans" are all those, like myself, that were born in the US, no matter where their ancestors came from, or how long ago it was, last week, or 3,000 years ago shouldn't matter. But to many, it does.

When we "own" something that really cannot be owned, like land, we get posessive about it. This is the natural historical state of man. We come from tribal groups, and other tribal groups were our competitors for the resources that kept us alive. In many languages the words for stanger and enemy have a common root. And the reason is that historically, they usually were the same thing.

One reason so many are upset with the immigration problem of today is that unlike the earlier mass immigrations from Europe, the immigration from south of the border is not making any great attempt to assimilate into our general culture. And because of that, our culture is "diversifying", because there is money to be made from the hispanic immigrants. Mexican Spanish is the de facto second language of the western US, and making great inroads in the eastern states as well. And we are allowing, and even encouraging this, because of our own greed.

Previous generation of immigrants, (mostly) from Europe worked hard at becoming Americans. Grandpa and grandma may barely speak English, but Mom and Dad do pretty well, and junior and sis barely speak the old country language. Old country cultural celebrations were private things, done at home, or in local community centers. Sure, we had ethnic neighborhoods, like Chinatown, or Little Italy, etc. but each succeeding generation was more "American" than the previous one.

We don't see the "hispanics" doing that. They are seen as refusing to become Americans, keeping their language, and their culture, separate and apart from the general "American" one. Previous immigrant generations took great pride in who they were, and where they came from, but they also took even greater pride in becoming Americans. The hispanics take great pride in who they are, and where they comae from, but they, as a group, don't seem to give a rats ass about becoming Americans. Many individuals do, but as a group, they don't give many of us that impression. And the admittedly racist hispanic groups agitating for turning over portions of the US to their rule (Aztlan) don't do anything to change this impression.

The seeming unwillingness to assimilate, to learn English, to become what we would recognize as "good" Americans creates resentment, intensifying the natural distrust of "foreigners".

America worked very hard to win WW II. We changed our society drastically in order to do so. We put women in the workforce, in numbers unknown in previous history. We became the "Arsenal of Democracy", and when the war ended, that arsenal converted to consumer production. Our productive capacity, combined with our natural resources created a tide of prosperity that we are still riding on (although currently it seems to be an ebb tide). Our own success has brought us the problems we have today, and we must do something about them. Had we failed, it would have brought a different set of problems, but we didn't fail. The "Greatest Generation" and those following made the US into the mightiest nation in the history of man, and we have been generous.

But there comes a time when even the most generous and kind have no more left to give without paupering themselves, and many are wondering if that time isn't just around the corner, if not already upon us.
 

Adrian

New member
S832 said:
Adrian, those people that you listed did have an effect, they saw an opportunity and took it, but the goal is for profit. People come here because they want to gain something.

Sure, I won't deny that, but are you really suggesting that we didn't gain something, too? It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.
 

Darren007

New member
America prior to its founding wasn't a country, it was nothing but a grouping of tribes.

They are incomparable.

But even if they were, just because you allowed yourselves to be destroyed doesn't mean we should.

Let the hypocrisy begin :rolleyes:

That last quote is just beyond any form of intelligent thought.
 
Top