0
dannydan

IS it torchs and pitchforks time yet?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Really; Carnegie is the example?



http://www.rense.com/general81/dtli.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317#.T9wyq5GA_-I

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty767.htm

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-is-594092.html

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html

If everyone had to write out a check for taxes to the IRS, state, and local municipality every three months, I think the country would have a different perception of what is going on. It is so easy to not miss money when you don't "see" it.
"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way." - Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Homeless people don't pay such taxes; although that holds regardless of their immigration status.



Right!! but if they were legitimately working they would be required to.

And homeless=not paying property taxes. Great!! Chances are the homeless don't have kids in school.

Medical...there are systems out there to provide medical for citizens who can not afford it.

apples/oranges
"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way." - Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>My Grandfather wanted to become an American citizen. He wasn't a parasite who fled
>during "the First Great Recession". He stayed and roughed it out. Not like these
>scumbags.

So did mine. You'd probably call him a "parasite that fled after the Potato Famine." I am glad he was able to. Because of him there are now engineers, teachers, stockbrokers, construction workers, programmers and nurses working here in the US. Horrible, I know.



They went through the process to become legal U.S. citizens and worked for it. They didn't get it handed to them so some politician could (hope) to get votes.

Chuck



It depends on how you define "worked for it."

When my great grandfather came "working for it" meant not being Chinese, getting here, affirming that you were not a criminal, and a doctor failing to find medical problems.

The family story is that once here his contribution was limited to triggers because he didn't want to move the family to play a more significant role in the Manhattan Project, although that could be a spin because in a letter Openheimer commented he was not keen on my great grandfather's branch of physics.

His son's work on classified RADAR projects doesn't make up for the deficiency although it probably made for interesting dinner table conversations surrounding what they were "not" doing at work.

OTOH, those contributions would have been to Germany if he stayed home.

That kind of makes you wonder about guys like Manuel, Ming, and Raghavender who'd go through the effort of getting here without our present immigration laws.

Especially since those laws are harder on educated people who have more to loose coming illegally in the form of relatively well paying positions at home.

A cynical person would suggest that's because our elected officials need a plurality of poorly educated and malleable voters easily convinced to put them in office plus a high paid (restrictions on competition help) elite to cover their spending habits.

Little things add up - like a database employers can use to verify legality while the laws stop at requiring a driver's license that could be forged by a college student and typewritten Social Security card and much more rigorous licensing laws surrounding high-paid professionals like doctors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>My Grandfather wanted to become an American citizen. He wasn't a parasite who fled
>during "the First Great Recession". He stayed and roughed it out. Not like these
>scumbags.

So did mine. You'd probably call him a "parasite that fled after the Potato Famine." I am glad he was able to. Because of him there are now engineers, teachers, stockbrokers, construction workers, programmers and nurses working here in the US. Horrible, I know.



They went through the process to become legal U.S. citizens and worked for it. They didn't get it handed to them so some politician could (hope) to get votes.

Chuck



It depends on how you define "worked for it."

When my great grandfather come "working for it" meant not being Chinese, getting here, affirming that you were not a criminal, and a doctor failing to find medical problems.

The family story is that once here his contribution was limited to triggers because he didn't want to move the family to play a more significant role in the Manhattan Project, although in his letters Openheimer wasn't keen on his branch of physics.




C'mon folks. The immigration issue/factors of the 1800's are not what we are facing today. Trying to draw parallels is simply insincere with respect to the modern problem.
"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way." - Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


C'mon folks. The immigration issue/factors of the 1800's are not what we are facing today. Trying to draw parallels is simply insincere with respect to the modern problem.



Right.

America did not yet have the most progressive income tax system out of the OECD 24 where native born slackers contribute relatively little and hard working people (like those who might apply the same drive getting here) carry them.

American costs of living and wages hadn't grown so big compared to those of people working in backwaters toured only by the wealthy like India and China so off-shoring was less viable.

Those countries weren't yet in a position to challenge and eclipse us (China is about to pass us and have the largest economy in the world making us #2) so getting more of their good people wasn't as important.

Less than 5.2 percent of the Continental United States (as of 2002) had been developed so there was more room for the newcomers.

The welfare state was less evolved too; although the vast majority of that goes to native-born Americans and legal immigrants so we'll go a lot farther cutting them off than reducing the relatively small number of illegals which may be getting a piece of that pie often illegally.

As a member of my town's white minority I don't think immigration is a big deal (as of 2010 my town was 40.9% Asian and 18.9% Hispanic). It provides more motivated people you can hire, the ethnic food is better, and apart from having to read around more languages on signs in public spaces there aren't obvious down-sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"working for it" could also mean coming over on an H1B visa and having a company get you a green card in exchange for accepting a wage lower than an American with similar experience would take.

Companies post jobs at salaries that are low by local standard with specific requirements, fail to fill them with Americans as one would expect, get H1B visas for foreign nationals, and pay for the following green-card process as long as the employees don't leave.

This is probably better than off-shoring those jobs for 1/5 the wages plus management overhead which would be even less expensive than Americans although it's still an un-American deviation from a free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>They went through the process to become legal U.S. citizens and worked for it.

No, they didn't. They just got on a boat and came here and hoped the US would welcome them. Fortunately the US did. If they tried that today they'd be thrown in jail.



O.K, then. The thing is, that was over a hundred years ago. Times were different. People were different. This country could take them. Today, we're running out of room and jobs are being outsourced and we can't take in all the ILLEGAL aliens and 'un-desireables'. We really need to know who is coming here. This ain't your Grandaddy's America.


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are right. If we had just killed the niggers, whopes, micks, spics, hunkies, kykes, frogs, krauts, POHM's, Moo's-lems, sand niggers, gookes, Japs, wok eyes, fagots, canadians, commies, liberals, pagens, baptists, mormens, ... everything would have been fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

you are right. If we had just killed the niggers, whopes, micks, spics, hunkies, kykes, frogs, krauts, POHM's, Moo's-lems, sand niggers, gookes, Japs, wok eyes, fagots, canadians, commies, liberals, pagens, baptists, mormens, ... everything would have been fine.



You left out jiggaboos. Why do you hate jiggaboos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

with the current POTUS' stance as well as the majority of REPRESENETIVES blatantly looking the other way on the immigration law. There are roughly 600 treasonist elected citizins running this nation. Will the True and Sincere Patriotic Americans wait until it's too late to take back our country or is it time now?



2 takes on this:

1 - It is petty compared to our real problems. Jobs are tight, and pay is low; but it is not because of illegal immigrants; and giving them the heave ho isn't going to solve whatever problems people have imagined them to have caused.

2 - Is this positioning for November - or just coincidence?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

YOU bleeding heart, emotionally led sheeple, you are freaKin missing, missed or will NEVER understand the original point. The POTUS went around the law that is already in place.



He didn't go around it. Those of you who hate him so much want him to cut spending...he just did. He cut spending on enforcement of immigration law against hard-working, productive young people. I find that a much more palatable concession than, say, taking food off the table of unemployed citizens. You'd prefer we deny medical benefits to the indigent, but keep kicking out studious kids and service members? ;)

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

He didn't go around it. Those of you who hate him so much want him to cut spending...he just did. He cut spending on enforcement of immigration law against hard-working, productive young people. I find that a much more palatable concession than, say, taking food off the table of unemployed citizens. You'd prefer we deny medical benefits to the indigent, but keep kicking out studious kids and service members? ;)



I'm not sure what I think of this decision by President Obama but just to clarify: this is NOT a full amnesty and it does NOT provide a guarantee against deportation. Basically once it is implemented a young person will need to sign a form stating that they are here unlawfully but are asking for a two year (renewable) deferment of enforcement action. After the two years, if Romney (or Obama if his priorities change) denies the renewal, they are still subject to deportation. How much this actually buys the young person will depend a lot in what state they live in. Some of the more liberal states--eg California and Washington--will consider the person sufficiently legal to get a driver's license legally. In more conservative states--eg Arizona and Virgina--they will still not be legally allowed to drive. In Arizona they may still be sufficiently illegal that they would run afoul of Arizona's controversial immigration law--depending of course on what the Supreme Court does with that law.

It is a very tenuous status that this action grants and those eligible would face a difficult decision as to whether to apply. The biggest problem is that such people must make themselves known to immigration as unlawful immigrants and basically throw themselves on the mercy of the immigration system.

I'm strongly against illegal immigration but any comprehensive immigration reform would need to include compromise and this group--law abiding immigrants who came here through no fault of their own--are definitely a sympathetic group to show some flexibility with. I'd prefer, however, if this was part of some larger legislation to better enforce existing immigration law.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0