What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

California grants drivers licenses for illegal immigrants (1 Viewer)

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
I disagree with you profoundly. And there is nothing self-serving about my POV. In fact, ever since I have held this POV (roughly for 20 years, since my mid 20s,) it has served me ill, since nearly everyone I know disagrees with me rather strongly, including my closest friends, my family members, and even my wife. Nonetheless, I believe what I believe.

Immigration is, has always been, and will ever be definitional for the United States. Of course all the issues you raise can be a concern, but I am convinced that we would be far worse as a society if we came to reject immigration, including illegal immigration.
All the "I"s in you post just proved my point. I'm focusing about the immigrants and the US, and how you fail to recognize them

There is no "can be a concern". My nice tony little town that has it's own Rodeo Blvd shopping corridor. But if I drive further south, I can find immigrants living in squalid conditions. One make shift trailer park that "housed" immigrants was something right out of the Third World. A family member of mine volunteered to help distribute food and clothing to them, and was shocked and depressed that people could live like that right here in this wealthy area of California. The park had no safe running water, no sewage system, no safe power solutions, and it took months for the local authorities to shut it down and find those immigrant families (with children no less) housing. It's still not completed, and it's been two years since they started. That park was housing them for years prior to it. The slumlord who took their money thought he was doing those people a favor too.

All that costs money. Those immigrants, despite living in the US didn't have enough to move elsewhere. So the money comes from somewhere else. Not from the slumlord.

You can find this example anywhere, in the Chinatown district in SF, in Los Angeles, San Diego, pretty much anywhere where there is a concentration of immigrants. You would think that after all these years of immigration that this would never happen, but it always will. Because it's the effect of importing poverty. It takes generations for those with no education and skills to overcome it. A lot of them do, but a lot of them don't. Some find it easier to make the quick buck via crime. Some think that the lawlessness of the country they come from exists here. All of the sudden they find out "Hey, we can't kidnap this girls Uncle via gunpoint to find out where she is, because now we are in jail" (true story that happened to a son of a Guatemalan immigrant I know, which his buddy that got him into this mess still thinks he did nothing wrong, and that Uncle was Guatemalan).

Let's not forget the issue of immigrants imported into slave trades that exist in the US too. Maybe next time you go for a Happy Ending, you can wonder when her Happy Ending, well, will happen.

If we can't fix the problems immigrants have in the US today, then we can't import more of those problems. Nevermind that the US should focus more on it's natural citizens. Every natural American should be granted opportunity first, and second, and if they don't take it, open a guest worker registration program that has rigid policy and regulation, so that those who apply won't end up in squalid conditions with no proper food, shelter, and health care. Three things that a lot of natural American citizens still don't have.
There has never been a group of immigrants who came in large numbers to this country, with three possible exceptions, who did not immediately end up in terrible terrible slums. Again I refer you to Jacob Riis.

(The three possible exceptions are the Cubans who came to Miami in the early 1960s, the Vietnamese who came to Westminster/Garden Grove in 1975, and the Iranians who came to southern California after 1979 But there were special circumstances surrounding all of these groups- they were upper/middle class or richer and they came with money.)

 
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
I disagree with you profoundly. And there is nothing self-serving about my POV. In fact, ever since I have held this POV (roughly for 20 years, since my mid 20s,) it has served me ill, since nearly everyone I know disagrees with me rather strongly, including my closest friends, my family members, and even my wife. Nonetheless, I believe what I believe.

Immigration is, has always been, and will ever be definitional for the United States. Of course all the issues you raise can be a concern, but I am convinced that we would be far worse as a society if we came to reject immigration, including illegal immigration.
All the "I"s in you post just proved my point. I'm focusing about the immigrants and the US, and how you fail to recognize them

There is no "can be a concern". My nice tony little town that has it's own Rodeo Blvd shopping corridor. But if I drive further south, I can find immigrants living in squalid conditions. One make shift trailer park that "housed" immigrants was something right out of the Third World. A family member of mine volunteered to help distribute food and clothing to them, and was shocked and depressed that people could live like that right here in this wealthy area of California. The park had no safe running water, no sewage system, no safe power solutions, and it took months for the local authorities to shut it down and find those immigrant families (with children no less) housing. It's still not completed, and it's been two years since they started. That park was housing them for years prior to it. The slumlord who took their money thought he was doing those people a favor too.

All that costs money. Those immigrants, despite living in the US didn't have enough to move elsewhere. So the money comes from somewhere else. Not from the slumlord.

You can find this example anywhere, in the Chinatown district in SF, in Los Angeles, San Diego, pretty much anywhere where there is a concentration of immigrants. You would think that after all these years of immigration that this would never happen, but it always will. Because it's the effect of importing poverty. It takes generations for those with no education and skills to overcome it. A lot of them do, but a lot of them don't. Some find it easier to make the quick buck via crime. Some think that the lawlessness of the country they come from exists here. All of the sudden they find out "Hey, we can't kidnap this girls Uncle via gunpoint to find out where she is, because now we are in jail" (true story that happened to a son of a Guatemalan immigrant I know, which his buddy that got him into this mess still thinks he did nothing wrong, and that Uncle was Guatemalan).

Let's not forget the issue of immigrants imported into slave trades that exist in the US too. Maybe next time you go for a Happy Ending, you can wonder when her Happy Ending, well, will happen.

If we can't fix the problems immigrants have in the US today, then we can't import more of those problems. Nevermind that the US should focus more on it's natural citizens. Every natural American should be granted opportunity first, and second, and if they don't take it, open a guest worker registration program that has rigid policy and regulation, so that those who apply won't end up in squalid conditions with no proper food, shelter, and health care. Three things that a lot of natural American citizens still don't have.
There has never been a group of immigrants who came in large numbers to this country, with three possible exceptions, who did not immediately end up in terrible terrible slums. Again I refer you to Jacob Riis.

(The three possible exceptions are the Cubans who came to Miami in the early 1960s, the Vietnamese who came to Westminster/Garden Grove in 1975, and the Iranians who came to southern California after 1979 But there were special circumstances surrounding all of these groups- they were upper/middle class or richer and they came with money.)
Jeebus, I thought I put enough credits towards your attention whore cam to at least show me some teat. All you're doing is linking me to some Danish porn.

 
The law was signed by Jerry Brown today. It goes into effect on January 1. Over 1.5 million illegals are expected to sign up immediately.

This is ####### awesome!
Tim, an illegal immigrant and tea party member are drowning and you can only save one. Who do you choose?
 
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
I disagree with you profoundly. And there is nothing self-serving about my POV. In fact, ever since I have held this POV (roughly for 20 years, since my mid 20s,) it has served me ill, since nearly everyone I know disagrees with me rather strongly, including my closest friends, my family members, and even my wife. Nonetheless, I believe what I believe.

Immigration is, has always been, and will ever be definitional for the United States. Of course all the issues you raise can be a concern, but I am convinced that we would be far worse as a society if we came to reject immigration, including illegal immigration.
All the "I"s in you post just proved my point. I'm focusing about the immigrants and the US, and how you fail to recognize them

There is no "can be a concern". My nice tony little town that has it's own Rodeo Blvd shopping corridor. But if I drive further south, I can find immigrants living in squalid conditions. One make shift trailer park that "housed" immigrants was something right out of the Third World. A family member of mine volunteered to help distribute food and clothing to them, and was shocked and depressed that people could live like that right here in this wealthy area of California. The park had no safe running water, no sewage system, no safe power solutions, and it took months for the local authorities to shut it down and find those immigrant families (with children no less) housing. It's still not completed, and it's been two years since they started. That park was housing them for years prior to it. The slumlord who took their money thought he was doing those people a favor too.

All that costs money. Those immigrants, despite living in the US didn't have enough to move elsewhere. So the money comes from somewhere else. Not from the slumlord.

You can find this example anywhere, in the Chinatown district in SF, in Los Angeles, San Diego, pretty much anywhere where there is a concentration of immigrants. You would think that after all these years of immigration that this would never happen, but it always will. Because it's the effect of importing poverty. It takes generations for those with no education and skills to overcome it. A lot of them do, but a lot of them don't. Some find it easier to make the quick buck via crime. Some think that the lawlessness of the country they come from exists here. All of the sudden they find out "Hey, we can't kidnap this girls Uncle via gunpoint to find out where she is, because now we are in jail" (true story that happened to a son of a Guatemalan immigrant I know, which his buddy that got him into this mess still thinks he did nothing wrong, and that Uncle was Guatemalan).

Let's not forget the issue of immigrants imported into slave trades that exist in the US too. Maybe next time you go for a Happy Ending, you can wonder when her Happy Ending, well, will happen.

If we can't fix the problems immigrants have in the US today, then we can't import more of those problems. Nevermind that the US should focus more on it's natural citizens. Every natural American should be granted opportunity first, and second, and if they don't take it, open a guest worker registration program that has rigid policy and regulation, so that those who apply won't end up in squalid conditions with no proper food, shelter, and health care. Three things that a lot of natural American citizens still don't have.
There has never been a group of immigrants who came in large numbers to this country, with three possible exceptions, who did not immediately end up in terrible terrible slums. Again I refer you to Jacob Riis.

(The three possible exceptions are the Cubans who came to Miami in the early 1960s, the Vietnamese who came to Westminster/Garden Grove in 1975, and the Iranians who came to southern California after 1979 But there were special circumstances surrounding all of these groups- they were upper/middle class or richer and they came with money.)
Jeebus, I thought I put enough credits towards your attention whore cam to at least show me some teat. All you're doing is linking me to some Danish porn.
:lol:

You know, I know you don't think much of me at all, but I really like you Drummer.

 
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
I disagree with you profoundly. And there is nothing self-serving about my POV. In fact, ever since I have held this POV (roughly for 20 years, since my mid 20s,) it has served me ill, since nearly everyone I know disagrees with me rather strongly, including my closest friends, my family members, and even my wife. Nonetheless, I believe what I believe.

Immigration is, has always been, and will ever be definitional for the United States. Of course all the issues you raise can be a concern, but I am convinced that we would be far worse as a society if we came to reject immigration, including illegal immigration.
All the "I"s in you post just proved my point. I'm focusing about the immigrants and the US, and how you fail to recognize them

There is no "can be a concern". My nice tony little town that has it's own Rodeo Blvd shopping corridor. But if I drive further south, I can find immigrants living in squalid conditions. One make shift trailer park that "housed" immigrants was something right out of the Third World. A family member of mine volunteered to help distribute food and clothing to them, and was shocked and depressed that people could live like that right here in this wealthy area of California. The park had no safe running water, no sewage system, no safe power solutions, and it took months for the local authorities to shut it down and find those immigrant families (with children no less) housing. It's still not completed, and it's been two years since they started. That park was housing them for years prior to it. The slumlord who took their money thought he was doing those people a favor too.

All that costs money. Those immigrants, despite living in the US didn't have enough to move elsewhere. So the money comes from somewhere else. Not from the slumlord.

You can find this example anywhere, in the Chinatown district in SF, in Los Angeles, San Diego, pretty much anywhere where there is a concentration of immigrants. You would think that after all these years of immigration that this would never happen, but it always will. Because it's the effect of importing poverty. It takes generations for those with no education and skills to overcome it. A lot of them do, but a lot of them don't. Some find it easier to make the quick buck via crime. Some think that the lawlessness of the country they come from exists here. All of the sudden they find out "Hey, we can't kidnap this girls Uncle via gunpoint to find out where she is, because now we are in jail" (true story that happened to a son of a Guatemalan immigrant I know, which his buddy that got him into this mess still thinks he did nothing wrong, and that Uncle was Guatemalan).

Let's not forget the issue of immigrants imported into slave trades that exist in the US too. Maybe next time you go for a Happy Ending, you can wonder when her Happy Ending, well, will happen.

If we can't fix the problems immigrants have in the US today, then we can't import more of those problems. Nevermind that the US should focus more on it's natural citizens. Every natural American should be granted opportunity first, and second, and if they don't take it, open a guest worker registration program that has rigid policy and regulation, so that those who apply won't end up in squalid conditions with no proper food, shelter, and health care. Three things that a lot of natural American citizens still don't have.
There has never been a group of immigrants who came in large numbers to this country, with three possible exceptions, who did not immediately end up in terrible terrible slums. Again I refer you to Jacob Riis.

(The three possible exceptions are the Cubans who came to Miami in the early 1960s, the Vietnamese who came to Westminster/Garden Grove in 1975, and the Iranians who came to southern California after 1979 But there were special circumstances surrounding all of these groups- they were upper/middle class or richer and they came with money.)
Jeebus, I thought I put enough credits towards your attention whore cam to at least show me some teat. All you're doing is linking me to some Danish porn.
:lol:

You know, I know you don't think much of me at all, but I really like you Drummer.
It's not about you, it's about the content you provide. If you get a more passionate response from me, then it doesn't mean I don't like it. It's more the opposite.

Message board stuff is message board stuff. It's all about entertainment, with also a bit of enlightenment as the kicker. I just focus on the words, and where they are coming from. I don't take it personally, and I hope you don't either.

 
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
 
Dr Oadi said:
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
You're referring to illegal immigrants, correct?

There's reason why Republicans talk a good game about illegal immigration yet have done nothing to stem the flow of illegals into the country. Businesses get to hire cheap labor while government supplements their income.

 
Dr Oadi said:
drummer said:
timschochet said:
Jewell said:
timschochet said:
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
How many corporations are on some form of government assistance (re: subsidies)? Perhaps we should kick some of them out?

I have made the argument numerous times that illegal immigrants provide much more of a financial benefit to society than they take out. I have linked to studies to prove it. But of course, modern day conservatives and nativists reject this because they simply don't want to believe it. Illegals are a necessary scapegoatl it's too easy to blame them for society's ills.

 
Dr Oadi said:
drummer said:
timschochet said:
Jewell said:
timschochet said:
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
How many corporations are on some form of government assistance (re: subsidies)? Perhaps we should kick some of them out?I have made the argument numerous times that illegal immigrants provide much more of a financial benefit to society than they take out. I have linked to studies to prove it. But of course, modern day conservatives and nativists reject this because they simply don't want to believe it. Illegals are a necessary scapegoatl it's too easy to blame them for society's ills.
You've linked studies that refute this as well and then try and argue that they prove it.

 
Stuff like this is a pretty strong endorsement for the Tea Party shutting down the government, though. When you feel strongly about something, you should use any means necessary to advance it. Even California Democrats agree.

 
Stuff like this is a pretty strong endorsement for the Tea Party shutting down the government, though. When you feel strongly about something, you should use any means necessary to advance it. Even California Democrats agree.
:lol: The Democrats in California were elected, and so was a Democratic governor. They got this done the old fashioned way: they passed a law. What's this "any means necessary"?

 
Stuff like this is a pretty strong endorsement for the Tea Party shutting down the government, though. When you feel strongly about something, you should use any means necessary to advance it. Even California Democrats agree.
:lol: The Democrats in California were elected, and so was a Democratic governor. They got this done the old fashioned way: they passed a law. What's this "any means necessary"?
The Tea Party was elected. They're doing things the old fashioned way by not passing laws.

 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
why is it a problem to have people that are driving have a license?
No problems, so long as they're driving in a country where they have citizenship.
I'm glad you agree that we need to give them citizenship. :thumbup:
They already have citizenship. Somewhere else, where they should be driving.

 
Stuff like this is a pretty strong endorsement for the Tea Party shutting down the government, though. When you feel strongly about something, you should use any means necessary to advance it. Even California Democrats agree.
:lol: The Democrats in California were elected, and so was a Democratic governor. They got this done the old fashioned way: they passed a law. What's this "any means necessary"?
The Tea Party was elected. They're doing things the old fashioned way by not passing laws.
:lol:

 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
why is it a problem to have people that are driving have a license?
No problems, so long as they're driving in a country where they have citizenship.
I'm glad you agree that we need to give them citizenship. :thumbup:
They already have citizenship. Somewhere else, where they should be driving.
:) Someday your hatred and ignorance will vanish, and love and acceptance will take their place. Hope, for your sake, it happens soon.

 
timschochet said:
Ghost Rider said:
timschochet said:
Ghost Rider said:
So basically, in Tim's world, entrance into this country should be a free-for-all. exactly as it was before 1925.
Fixed.
Should we also go back to women not being able to vote? And why go back to just the 1920s? Why not just go back to the 1800s and get slavery going again, right? I mean, if we are gonna go back 100+ for immigration, then why not for other things as well?
Are you actually arguing that open immigration is akin to any of the items you mentioned? We are better off, as a society, with women voting, and without slavery. We are NOT better off since we restricted immigration, IMO.
Congrats on missing the point. AGAIN.

 
timschochet said:
Ghost Rider said:
timschochet said:
Ghost Rider said:
So basically, in Tim's world, entrance into this country should be a free-for-all. exactly as it was before 1925.
Fixed.
Should we also go back to women not being able to vote? And why go back to just the 1920s? Why not just go back to the 1800s and get slavery going again, right? I mean, if we are gonna go back 100+ for immigration, then why not for other things as well?
Are you actually arguing that open immigration is akin to any of the items you mentioned? We are better off, as a society, with women voting, and without slavery. We are NOT better off since we restricted immigration, IMO.
Congrats on missing the point. AGAIN.
Do I win something?

 
Dr Oadi said:
drummer said:
timschochet said:
Jewell said:
timschochet said:
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
How many corporations are on some form of government assistance (re: subsidies)? Perhaps we should kick some of them out?

I have made the argument numerous times that illegal immigrants provide much more of a financial benefit to society than they take out. I have linked to studies to prove it. But of course, modern day conservatives and nativists reject this because they simply don't want to believe it. Illegals are a necessary scapegoatl it's too easy to blame them for society's ills.
Leave it to me to do tim's work:

http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

Won't paste any text. I'll leave that up to tim.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Oadi said:
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
You're referring to illegal immigrants, correct?

There's reason why Republicans talk a good game about illegal immigration yet have done nothing to stem the flow of illegals into the country. Businesses get to hire cheap labor while government supplements their income.
Dr Oadi said:
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
You're referring to illegal immigrants, correct?

There's reason why Republicans talk a good game about illegal immigration yet have done nothing to stem the flow of illegals into the country. Businesses get to hire cheap labor while government supplements their income.
Bingo. I work in construction and can tell you, without a single ####### doubt, that business owners do NOT want INS sniffing around. If folks REALLY wanted to get rid of illegal immigrants, just raid every construction site (except mine, though all of my guys are legal) or restaurant.

 
Dr Oadi said:
drummer said:
timschochet said:
Jewell said:
timschochet said:
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
How many corporations are on some form of government assistance (re: subsidies)? Perhaps we should kick some of them out?I have made the argument numerous times that illegal immigrants provide much more of a financial benefit to society than they take out. I have linked to studies to prove it. But of course, modern day conservatives and nativists reject this because they simply don't want to believe it. Illegals are a necessary scapegoatl it's too easy to blame them for society's ills.
Leave it to me to do tim's work:

http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

Won't paste any text. I'll leave that up to tim.
Hey thanks for that. Of course it won't make any difference to these guys...
 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
why is it a problem to have people that are driving have a license?
No problems, so long as they're driving in a country where they have citizenship.
I'm glad you agree that we need to give them citizenship. :thumbup:
They already have citizenship. Somewhere else, where they should be driving.
:) Someday your hatred and ignorance will vanish, and love and acceptance will take their place. Hope, for your sake, it happens soon.
I completely agree. Only a matter of time before the federal government crumbles under its own weight. The sooner the better.

 
Dr Oadi said:
drummer said:
timschochet said:
Jewell said:
timschochet said:
In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.
That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.
The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.
Welcome to 21rst century American immigration where 40% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Sure lets go back to pre 1925 immigration Tim. How much government assistance did they get?
How many corporations are on some form of government assistance (re: subsidies)? Perhaps we should kick some of them out?I have made the argument numerous times that illegal immigrants provide much more of a financial benefit to society than they take out. I have linked to studies to prove it. But of course, modern day conservatives and nativists reject this because they simply don't want to believe it. Illegals are a necessary scapegoatl it's too easy to blame them for society's ills.
Leave it to me to do tim's work:

http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

Won't paste any text. I'll leave that up to tim.p
Hey thanks for that. Of course it won't make any difference to these guys...
That shows that poor non citizens use government at a lower rate than poor citizens. 25% to 20%. Something to really jump up and scream about. Nothing to back up your claim about how illegal immigration does more for than against the American economy. Funny how you blast corporations on governments assistance when they are the benefactors of your claim about how illegal immigration is good for America by keeping prices low by keeping their employees pay low.
 
:drive: :bs:

It makes sense on so many levels. It's going to bring in tons of revenue into the DMV. Insurance companies will also make money giving new policies and it will decrease crimes. That will make OUR car insurance lower.

Most important of all, by welcoming these people into the legitimacy of our society, we work to decrease their alienation from it, which has grown so dangerously in the past few years. THIS is the way to treat illegals- with a helping hand.
 
One possible benefits is that it's going to make it easier to round these people up and ship them out if it's popular at the federal level. The NSA might be able to implant them with some sort of chip to track their movements and make us safer from potential terrorists while they've got them on hand.

 
One possible benefits is that it's going to make it easier to round these people up and ship them out if it's popular at the federal level. The NSA might be able to implant them with some sort of chip to track their movements and make us safer from potential terrorists while they've got them on hand.
:lol:

Nice try. Pretty stinky bait, here.

 
"LET'S GO DAH-YERS". That's what it sounds like the crowd is saying at Dodger Stadium. Just sayin.....
those are the legal citizens of this fine land, that were born here.....from the wombs of illegal immigrants :D

y'all crack me up. it's an obvious ploy to get more revenue for this cash starved state. that's it. pure and simple.

most of them already have some form of counterfeit ID, whether it be federal or state. i'm really hoping a real go getter gets a hold of my ss# and pumps thousands into my SS balance.

 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.
They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.
If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.
They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.
If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.
:ptts:

 
It makes sense on so many levels. It's going to bring in tons of revenue into the DMV. Insurance companies will also make money giving new policies and it will decrease crimes. That will make OUR car insurance lower.

Most important of all, by welcoming these people into the legitimacy of our society, we work to decrease their alienation from it, which has grown so dangerously in the past few years. THIS is the way to treat illegals- with a helping hand.
How you could be against this is beyond me. Otherwise EVERY illegal in the country won't have a license or insurance and when they hit you they will run. They will be driving, makes sense to have them insured and not fearing deportation when they get in a minor fender bender with you.

 
Rove! said:
I don't understand the logic of being against it.
Makes it easier for rogue business to hire illegal immigants at an inhumane wage and drives the wage market down for the working poor
But that's good for the economy by keeping prices of goods low according to the illegals give more than take narrative.
 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.
They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.
If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.
This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

 
Jeebus, you guys suck:

  • African American men are dramatically more likely to be imprisoned than are other groups.
    Just more than half of California’s adult male population is nonwhite or Latino (56%), but these groups make up three of every four men in prison: Latinos are 41%, African Americans are 29%, and other races are 6%. Among adult men in 2010, African Americans were incarcerated at a rate of 5,525 per 100,000, compared to 1,146 for Latinos, 671 for non-Latino whites, and 43 for Asians.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=702

See tim? Instead of fapping away, you could actually put your hands to use!

 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.
They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.
If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.
As lawmakers in Washington continue to negotiate over immigration policies, they'll have to grapple with a fundamental disagreement about the link between immigrants and crime.

Elected officials from Pennsylvania to Arizona have argued that undocumented immigrants contribute to higher crime rates, but some social scientists tell a different story. They argue that first-generation immigrants actually make their communities safer — and they point to some of the nation's biggest cities as proof.

Two decades ago, Brooklyn's Sunset Park neighborhood was nicknamed "Gunset Park" because of its high crime rates. Today, the commercial avenues are bustling, and once-empty storefronts are now full of businesses catering to immigrants from Latin America and Asia and their young families.

"When a lot of immigrants come to communities, crime tends to drop," says Philip Kasinitz, who teaches sociology at the City University of New York Graduate Center. "And, of course, it's quite the opposite of what many people think."

Police statistics show that Sunset Park is much safer than it was 20 years ago. Homicides are down more than 90 percent. Crime rates have dropped all over New York City since 1990 — but especially in neighborhoods that have high immigration.

Researchers say communities with large immigrant populations create features that depress crime, like busy street life and lots of young families.

Researchers say communities with large immigrant populations create features that depress crime, like busy street life and lots of young families.

Joel Rose/NPR

To be fair, Kasinitz says, "it's absolutely not something you can attribute to any one cause." He points to a variety of potential factors, including changes in policing and the end of the crack epidemic.

"But I would say, among the things that are on the positive side of the ledger, has been this dramatic increase in immigration," Kasinitz says. "The fact that you've got more people, that you don't have empty storefronts, that it's not deserted, sort of decreases the conditions that can create crime."

And it's not just happening in New York City. Across the country, cities with high rates of immigration, like Los Angeles, Houston and San Diego, also have much lower crime rates than they did 20 years ago.

Some social scientists say that's not a coincidence. Robert Sampson of Harvard University argues that first-generation immigrants make their communities safer by working hard and raising families.

"You don't migrate to the United States from countries around the world on a whim. It takes planning," Sampson says. "And for the most part, it is driven by economic motivations. People want a better life. They're seeking to get ahead. And those are the very factors that tend to be associated with lower crime."

Sampson says this seems to be true whether or not the immigrants have entered the country legally. But some say there is a difference when it comes to crime.

"You cannot intermingle immigrants with those that are in the country illegally," says Lou Barletta, former mayor of Hazleton, a small city in northeastern Pennsylvania that experienced an influx of Latino immigration in the early 2000s. In 2006, one of Barletta's constituents was murdered by a man who was in the country illegally.

"The shooter was arrested eight times before he came to Hazleton," says Barletta, now a member of Congress. "Should not have even been in the country, let alone in our city, taking the life of an innocent man. That was the final straw."

Hazleton passed tough laws — still tied up in court — that made it a crime to hire or rent to undocumented immigrants.

Pennsylvania isn't the only state where lawmakers have tried to curb immigration in the name of public safety. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has also said her state's tough anti-immigration law is necessary for the safety of Arizona residents.

Day laborers wait on at a street corner in Tucson, Ariz., hoping for an employer to drive up and put them to work. The photograph was taken in 2008.

"I feel as governor I have a responsibility to protect the citizens, in 2010. "We've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just — it's been outrageous."

But Brewer's critics say there's simply no evidence that illegal immigrants are driving up crime rates. And even the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which opposes increased immigration, came to the same conclusion.

"There's no evidence that immigrants — or even illegal immigrants — are necessarily any more or less likely to be committing crimes than the population at large, says Jessica Vaughan, the center's director of policy studies. "It's just that they tend to be associated with certain types of crimes — drug trafficking, for example."

There is evidence that immigrants are overrepresented in local prison systems in Arizona and elsewhere. But overall, violent crime is actually lower than you would expect along the U.S. border with Mexico, says Ramiro Martinez, who teaches criminology at Northeastern University.

"In Texas, homicides are actually a little bit lower in border counties than they are in the rest of the state," Martinez says. "Not only in Texas, but also in New Mexico and Arizona, in California — more immigrants means less crime."

That finding may run counter to the public perception that immigrants contribute to higher crime rates. But if lawmakers in Washington look to the research of Martinez and others, they'll find a growing body of evidence to the contrary.
 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.
They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.
If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.
This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.
They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

 
Sarnoff trying to sweep the dust from between his ears. Maybe he should hire an illegal to do it for him. Oh wait! They are already in there.

Pay them so they can get back to work.

 
Missed this thread. It's just another spoke in the wheel of the demise of America. Eventually all great Empires come to a close, perhaps America is still beginning but it doesn't feel that way lately in the last 10-20 years.

 
Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.
The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.
They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.
If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.
This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.
They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.
I love how you immediately switch subjects. The higher rate of crime not working for you? Well let's move onto government costs then.

Anyhow, for each of your standard complaints there is of course a standard answer: the way to reduce prison costs is not to deport illegals but to decriminalize certain "crimes". Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth. Finally, yes these things cost money. Sometimes, in border states, it costs more money than the amount of money that illegal immigrants save us (which is considerable, and which overall is a net gain.) But even in those cases it would be wise to look at these people as an investment for our future. They are well worth the money. The ones who stay are the best kind of Americans= they risked their lives to come here.

 
Missed this thread. It's just another spoke in the wheel of the demise of America. Eventually all great Empires come to a close, perhaps America is still beginning but it doesn't feel that way lately in the last 10-20 years.
To the contrary, my friend. It's a great step on the way back. Things like this should remind us why America is an exceptional place.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top