billvon 2,450
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteI imagine you're just trying to be humorous, but please consider that your description of how "female illegals" give birth is rather degrading. I hope that wasn't your intent.
You are right. It was uncalled for on my part so I apologise
QuoteAnyhow, you misunderstand US law. Being born in the US only conveys citizenship to the infant, not the parents, or even the mother. My legally-immigrated grandmother wasn't a US citizen when my father was born; she still had to apply for naturalization.
And to anticipate the "Plan B" argument: if an illegal immigrant mom gives birth to a child in the US, although the child (being a US citizen) is entitled to continue to live in his own country, the mom's presence in the US remains illegal and she is still subject to deportation, whether or not she chooses to take her US-born child(ren) with her.
Also, U.S.-born children cannot sponsor their parents for immigration to the United States until reaching adulthood, and illegal immigrant parents do not gain any additional legal rights based solely on the fact that they have had a child born in the U.S.
Partly I am basing my input on Canada's laws, but I was under the impression that, that part of your law was identical to ours based on prior discussions on this forum. Here the mother and father also get citizenship which is why it is so strongly abused and opposed here. I am still not comfortable with the idea of giving the kid citizenship because there is the concern of what possibilities that opens up.
I am not anti-immigrant by the way. If you have seen my posts on most any topic I have very strong views on any abuse or policy that is open to abuse. This includes stealing, cell-phone misuse, academic dishonesty and of course illegal immigration because it is ultimately people like me and you that pay for these apparently "victimless" crimes.
It is a very hot topic up here in Canada because our immigration/refugee laws are so blatantly open to abuse that they have become an international joke. To further add to the problem our politicians use them as a political chip to be played at will regardless of the cost to canadians. It appears that there is at least a similar trend down on your side of the border.
I do feel that Canada and the US have a certain obligation to our mexican, central american and caribbean neighbors more so than to countries across the ocean (neighbors first), which is why in this thread and others I have voiced my support for efforts to try to bring mexicos economy up to a more first world standard of living. Ideally if the 3 nations were on par (economically) then like the EU, immigration would be less of an issue of cheap labour at the expense of domestic workers issue and more of an issue of matching certain skills with jobs where they are needed
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteKarl: I've been making the same point as what you're (correctly) trying to say: that the European settlers and their descendants who displaced the Native Americans could quite properly be referred to as illegal immigrants - and that there's some irony in the shoe now being on the other foot.
If you want to ignore the difference between a frontier and an established nation, you might have something to work with.
But you can't dress up the Mexicans as native Americans without gross simplification. There's a lot of Spanish (and other European) blood in there. Mestizos are the majority in most Latin American countries. For Mexico, roughly 60%.
BTW, any word yet on how Mexico City is greatest city on earth?
QuoteQuoteKarl: I've been making the same point as what you're (correctly) trying to say: that the European settlers and their descendants who displaced the Native Americans could quite properly be referred to as illegal immigrants - and that there's some irony in the shoe now being on the other foot.
If you want to ignore the difference between a frontier and an established nation, you might have something to work with.
But you can't dress up the Mexicans as native Americans without gross simplification. There's a lot of Spanish (and other European) blood in there. Mestizos are the majority in most Latin American countries. For Mexico, roughly 60%.
BTW, any word yet on how Mexico City is greatest city on earth?
That drives me nuts! Folks jumping on the 'Native American bandwagon' whenever the topic of illegal aliens comes up. I don't see any of those staunch defenders doing anything to help the Native Americans or jumping on the first freighter back to the land of their ancestors, either! Gimme a break!
Chuck
Richards 0
QuoteQuote>"if we do not let them come legally they will come illegally".
It is a practical consideration, and IMO laws should take practicality into consideration.
To an extent yes. Changing your law simply because they will break it anyway is a serious concession of your sovereignty. It is up to your nation to decide immigration laws in accordance with it's needs, not up to others to make you submit.Quote> Now if the argument is that the US is underpopulated and does not have
> enough workers who are willing to work in accordance with your labour laws
>nor enough people to keep rents or housing prices at a high enough levels
>then yes increasing immigration is a good thing.
That is not, and has never been, the reason we allow immigration.
Again I am speaking from a Canadian perspective here so I cannot say how much this applies on your side, but here many economists and policy experts agree we need to cut back yet the government does not. When Mulroney massively increased our immigration intake by 150% he said it was a neccesary inflation fighting measure (despite the fact that we were in a recession. It is also worth noting that on your side Alan Greenspan was quoted as saying that immigration should be uncapped so as to counter inflation. It appears that some people do base this policy decision on cutting costs at the expense of the domestic polulationQuote>Otherwise you are resigning yourself to letting criminals dictate to you what
>your policies should be.
We do that now. Some stretches of road out here have received higher speed limits because people drive faster than the speed limit, and become hazards to the people who actually _obey_ the speed limit
It would seem that stricter enforcement would be a better solution.Quote- and in some cases there's no reason to keep them going that slowly, other than tradition.
See at least there we have a reason for changing it other than merely conceding. If the law is a flawed law then yes change it. Don't change it so that crimes cease to be crimes.QuoteLikewise, if we can cut down on the number of criminals who come in by allowing more legal people to come in (with documentation etc) then we come out ahead in terms of public safety.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Thats like telling cops not to pursue criminals because it can cause accidents. Instead of backing off, transfer the risk. Make it a higher consequence to get caught illegaly in the US and for hiring illegals. As for better solutions (and more long term) it has also been mentioned on this board that working to help bring mexicos economy up would be a great start. It could take at least a genaration but it is a better solution than simply bending your policies.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Andy9o8 0
Boys, boys - My point is that simply that I find it ironic that certain people who bitch about immigration - oh, they say "illegal immigration", but they really just mean immigration - are so hot to focus about "them taking over" (mean culturally, and linguistically) - and are in large part the descendants of those who did the same thing to the last large group of natives to be displaced.
QuoteIf you want to ignore the difference between a frontier and an established nation, you might have something to work with.
Like the established Seminole, Iroquois, Cherokee, Lakota, Arapaho, Pawnee, Comanche, Hopi, Pueblo and Navajo nations? Good point.
[DSE:
] Oh, and Ute. Sorry, Spot.
One man's "frontier" is - or was - another man's established nation. Columbus didn't "discover" America - it was already there.
Richards 0
Quotethe European settlers and their descendants who displaced the Native Americans could quite properly be referred to as illegal immigrants - and that there's some irony in the shoe now being on the other foot.
That argument is one that I have never agreed with. Are Americans of European descent now supposed to have no self determination in their own nation because their ancestors denied it to someone else? Is that a curse or burden that we are born with? Shoe on the other foot? I am frightened by that statement. It scares me how often that argument is used against westerners or often white peope as though the ones who are now on the receiving end of a wrong are somehow justifiably deserving of that wrong because of their heritage or skin colour. I displaced nobody. Should I go back to europe even though I am not a citizen of any country there. Are north americans uniquely to become a people without a homeland because our ancestors committed wrongs? Many nations on earth were previously owned by displaced persons. Should the cycle of "your people did it to those people so now it is only right that we give your generation of your people your just desserts" continue indefinitely? That is not irony or justice. THat is generations of hate being perpetuated. Every wrong that had been perpetuated against me by a minority has apparently been justified by the fact that people who look like me once did bad things to people who look like him. I am willing to say that we need to work to make the world a fairer place for all but I am a north american not a european and I should have as much right as a citizen of any other country to have a say in our immigration policy. I cannot be born guilty and thus without rights.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Andy9o8 0
You're reading far more into what I've said than intended. I'm acknowledging poetic irony.
[Richards: 
]
Ok, I guess you've never read the classics.
ExAFO 0
My cat has a bad case of mud butt tonight. It's not pretty.
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
QuoteBoys, boys - My point is that simply that I find it ironic that certain people who bitch about immigration - oh, they say "illegal immigration", but they really just mean immigration - are so hot to focus about "them taking over" (mean culturally, and linguistically) - and are in large part the descendants of those who did the same thing to the last large group of natives to be displaced.
QuoteIf you want to ignore the difference between a frontier and an established nation, you might have something to work with.
Like the established Seminole, Iroquois, Cherokee, Lakota, Arapaho, Pawnee, Comanche, Hopi, Pueblo and Navajo nations? Good point.
[DSE:]
Oh, and Ute. Sorry, Spot.
One man's "frontier" is - or was - another man's established nation. Columbus didn't "discover" America - it was already there.
When I say illegal alien... I mean illegal alien. The ones who sneak into this country without going through proper channels to become legal citizens. Now, do you get it??????????????????
Chuck
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteYou're reading far more into what I've said than intended. I'm acknowledging poetic irony.
[Richards:
Ok, I guess you've never read the classics.
But irony can be carried from one generation to the next? It almost implies that americans who comlain about immigration are hypocrytes for complaining about someone doing to them what thier ancestors did to someone else. I do not have the dictionary with me but I do not see irony there as I understand the definition of it. If I mayself had been party to displacing the natives I suspect that irony might be an appropriate term in this case.
I realize you mean no harm, but I wish to quote DZJ's comment in an unrelated thread about comments like that which are thrown around untill they become accepted as normal comments.
QuoteI read a lot of history, and it often seems to me that some of man's most base and degenerate instincts can lie very close to the surface, even when that societal surface is highly sophisticated and developed(I suppose you could say 'liberal', in its proper sense). Further it seems that it doesn't take much for that surface to crack, or even shatter completely. Given that, I tend to see talk of casual brutality and such to be a hairline crack in that surface. When what might well be idle talk works its way into the accepted landscape, words have an insidious way of eventually becoming actions.
Now he was referring to violence in general, but I draw parallels between what he has said about casual comments about violence and the willingness of many people to casually refer to the current generation of americans of european descent as being the wrongdoers who are getting their just desserts. It scares me how casually many non-european immigrants refer to "us" as the ones who hurt their people in the past and casually justify wrongs against "us" but then say they didn't mean it literally. Almost every day I hear some wrong against Americans or white people being justified casually because "of what they did to group X" way back in histroy. It is becoming all too common.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteIt scares me how casually many non-european immigrants refer to "us" as the ones who hurt their people in the past and casually justify wrongs against "us" but then say they didn't mean it literally.
Nobody is squeaky clean. Europeans do very much the same thing every Good Friday.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt scares me how casually many non-european immigrants refer to "us" as the ones who hurt their people in the past and casually justify wrongs against "us" but then say they didn't mean it literally.
Nobody is squeaky clean. Europeans do very much the same thing every Good Friday.
I am not sure what you refer to when you say that people in europe look at past wrongs by others as a justification for current wrongs while celebrating good friday but I am curious to hear what this is about.
Also what does this have to do with my argument? Not being confrontational, you honestly have me perplexed here.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Let me make it easy for you:
white man - bad. colored people - good.
white man - bad. colored people - good.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt scares me how casually many non-european immigrants refer to "us" as the ones who hurt their people in the past and casually justify wrongs against "us" but then say they didn't mean it literally.
Nobody is squeaky clean. Europeans do very much the same thing every Good Friday.
I am not sure what you refer to when you say that people in europe look at past wrongs by others as a justification for current wrongs while celebrating good friday but I am curious to hear what this is about.
Also what does this have to do with my argument? Not being confrontational, you honestly have me perplexed here.
I think, we have a bunch of Washington politicians who have been lulled into a state of 'blissful ignorance' and thus, dis-interest. They have spread this feeling to a good number of their constituants with a weak defense. We have a problem on our Southwest border and they don't want to deal with it. When a Sheriff in Hudspeth County, Texas is confronted by Mexican troops protecting a drug shipment, 12-miles into this country we, have a problem! Other similar incidences, all along our Southwest border. I would call that, an invasion. For some unknown reason, the media doesn't cover it.
Chuck
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteLet me make it easy for you:
white man - bad. colored people - good.
Seems to be a common opinion these days
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteI think, we have a bunch of Washington politicians who have been lulled into a state of 'blissful ignorance' and thus, dis-interest. They have spread this feeling to a good number of their constituants with a weak defense. We have a problem on our Southwest border and they don't want to deal with it. When a Sheriff in Hudspeth County, Texas is confronted by Mexican troops protecting a drug shipment, 12-miles into this country we, have a problem! Other similar incidences, all along our Southwest border. I would call that, an invasion. For some unknown reason, the media doesn't cover it.
When I hear things like this what kills me is the "why" part of it. What is the motive behind not acknowledging something like that? Why is that not front page news? What exactly is going on here?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe one thing the mexican immigrants have is they are native to the continental americas,
Karl - What do you assume is the ancestry of mexicans? Evil Europeans?
Bill - Never made an assumption, rather I was trying to point out that "white" americans are in part more immigrant than those who have ancestral roots in the americas, such as native americans, mexicans etc
Hope that makes sense.
I was just wondering how much percentage of a 'typical' Mexican is spanish or portugese or otherwise European - in response to you noting they are 'native to the continental americas'. Or at least the assumption of those that make that argument. (Personally, I hate to categorize a people by what I'd personally consider 'typical'. There's too much mixing in the Americas to put people in buckets like that."
I was just addressing the point as those that 'displaced' the locals isn't simply just white bashing, but you have to look at ancestry of each individual and not just focus on skin color. Either that, or one just admits it's a weak argument in today's context. There should be a more logical approach than the 'who did it first a couple centuries/millenia' old hat.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
skydyvr 0
QuoteI've also made it clear that I won't be deterred just because a couple people dismissively mischaracterize my point . . .
Make it a "few".
. . =(_8^(1)
QuoteQuoteI think, we have a bunch of Washington politicians who have been lulled into a state of 'blissful ignorance' and thus, dis-interest. They have spread this feeling to a good number of their constituants with a weak defense. We have a problem on our Southwest border and they don't want to deal with it. When a Sheriff in Hudspeth County, Texas is confronted by Mexican troops protecting a drug shipment, 12-miles into this country we, have a problem! Other similar incidences, all along our Southwest border. I would call that, an invasion. For some unknown reason, the media doesn't cover it.
When I hear things like this what kills me is the "why" part of it. What is the motive behind not acknowledging something like that? Why is that not front page news? What exactly is going on here?
I don't understand it either. I live in a border county, a short drive to the Rio Grande. It appears to me, we are so afraid to offend the Mexican government. We have poured a few billion dollars into 'helping' the corrupt Mexican government fight the movement of drugs. Helicopters, surveillance equipment and training. Most of those who we trained, joined the Zetas who are a very scarey bunch, with Ak's, 50-cal. weapons. Our government sent the National Guard to our border with rubber bullets and few instructions. One television station out of El Paso, 'tried' to cover the problem but, was told to stop! Because, we don't hear it on the news or read it in the papers, the rest of America doesn't know about it. I've recently, been watching Glenn Beck, on CNN. He has really been trying to get the 'word' out about the problem. I think too, we in this country have just been lulled into a false sense of security.
Chuck
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe one thing the mexican immigrants have is they are native to the continental americas,
Karl - What do you assume is the ancestry of mexicans? Evil Europeans?
Bill - Never made an assumption, rather I was trying to point out that "white" americans are in part more immigrant than those who have ancestral roots in the americas, such as native americans, mexicans etc
Hope that makes sense.
I was just wondering how much percentage of a 'typical' Mexican is spanish or portugese or otherwise European - in response to you noting they are 'native to the continental americas'. Or at least the assumption of those that make that argument. (Personally, I hate to categorize a people by what I'd personally consider 'typical'. There's too much mixing in the Americas to put people in buckets like that."
I was just addressing the point as those that 'displaced' the locals isn't simply just white bashing, but you have to look at ancestry of each individual and not just focus on skin color. Either that, or one just admits it's a weak argument in today's context. There should be a more logical approach than the 'who did it first a couple centuries/millenia' old hat.
AMEN!
Chuck
I think, the most important thing is, to take control of our borders. I've pointed-out just a hand-full of incidences that have happened along our Southwest border but, that doesn't scratch the surface of the incidents in all our other states concerning illegals. Since 9-11, the increase of Iraqui people entering this country from Mexico, has tripled. We need to take control of our borders simply, so we know who, is coming here. It's not just a matter of 'laborers' looking for a better life. It's about the criminal element coming here. We need to wake-up.
Chuck
Chuck
It is a practical consideration, and IMO laws should take practicality into consideration.
> Now if the argument is that the US is underpopulated and does not have
> enough workers who are willing to work in accordance with your labour laws
>nor enough people to keep rents or housing prices at a high enough levels
>then yes increasing immigration is a good thing.
That is not, and has never been, the reason we allow immigration.
>Otherwise you are resigning yourself to letting criminals dictate to you what
>your policies should be.
We do that now. Some stretches of road out here have received higher speed limits because people drive faster than the speed limit, and become hazards to the people who actually _obey_ the speed limit - and in some cases there's no reason to keep them going that slowly, other than tradition. Is that letting criminals dictate what you do? To an extent, but public safety generally trumps such considerations.
Likewise, if we can cut down on the number of criminals who come in by allowing more legal people to come in (with documentation etc) then we come out ahead in terms of public safety.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites