Republicans trying to burn the Constitution and disgusted by immigrants

My whole point was about proximity of Mexico compared to France, Germany et al. It's not "a" Mexican that's the problem; it's many, many, many of them entering illegally. Their numbers outpace any of those other nations. If France were next door and they suffered the governance of Mexico, it couldn't be construed as a race issue since French are mostly caucasian.

No doubt, for some, race is an overlay but to ignore that the problem is at root one of illegal immigration is a log in your own eye.

What other illegal things do we so ignore?

 

You really don't want to go down that road do you?

 

How does the number of Mexicans living here illegally directly negatively influence you over the other 43% of illegals living here? What is the negative impact on you?

We've determined it's not crime. We've determined that they pay taxes and into benefits they will never receive and in fact are a boon to business. We have determined that they come and go as do the jobs. How are they negatively impacting you? Do you have a problem with having cheap housecleaners and fruits?

Frankly, the illegal activities I have problems with are how companies are polluting our environment and taking illegal risks with public money. Or all the scams that people try to propagate. I'm all for the policy of going after employers breaking the law, and making good efforts to secure our border.

But how much money to you throw at a problem that might not even be our worst problem?

 

Probably because illegals from Europe are far more likely to have an education or some sort of training that will allow them to support themselves without government assistance.

Plus, immigrants from Europe (whether illegal or not) make up a tiny sliver of the total number.

And because European immigrants are also more likely to practice birth control, because they come from secular societies, so even if they are dirt poor at least they won't have large families that place an even greater financial burden on the state.

The issue of immigration complicated, and there are no easy answers. We need immigration, but it must be done in a controlled way that matches the health of our economy and the number of unwanted jobs that need to be filled, but we've long exceeded that limit. There simply isn't any work available for non skilled workers. We already have a surplus of immigrants for those type of jobs, so every illegal that enters the country is almost guaranteed to be a financial drain.

And still they come, in the hundreds of thousands, every year, and we simply cannot afford to continue allowing that to happen.

 

Just open the borders. Let anyone who isn't a criminal or mental health patient in.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZw5Ql5t4QU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZw5Ql5t4QU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

That would be insane. We don't have the resources to handle that sort of rapid population growth.

 

Why not? Might be fun!

 

Me? Probably nothing, but it is a crisis in certain locales. THe overall statistical view tends to minimize the reality that some states and communities are feeling.

 

D'Oh!

Harry Reid tried to end birthright citizenship for illegals in 1993

 

^^^ from your link

from Greg Sargent

Guess what: It happens to be true that Reid did introduce such a bill. And it was indefensible. But here’s the thing: I’ve learned that Reid already apologized profusely for this in a speech in 2006, admitted he was wrong, and described this as the “low point” of his career. In other words, Reid himself agrees that it was indefensible.

 

He's been constantly insinuating that I'm a xenophobe and a racist. Read the thread.

Actually I never made a reference to Mexicans until you dropped the beauty about only 5% of illegals crossing the border illegally and how there is this apparent European immigration problem that nobody talks about. I posted the stats that said Euros account for 6% of illegal immigration and Mexicans account for 57%. You brought the issue up, not me. After that, rocketsjukoda responded to my statistics asking me what's wrong with Mexicans. As if attributing a statistic to a nationality is racist in some way. He then talked about his being on a train in San Diego near the border and claimed all of the people on the train were good, hard working, community citizens based on their looks. If generalizing a group of strangers based on their race isn't racist then someone will have to define the word for me.

I've nowhere advocated any less punishment or deportation for illegals of any country much less Europe. The fact is it's more difficult for Europeans to sneak across the border since they don't SHARE a border with us. I would think this is common sense if over 50% of illegals cross the border illegally then you would focus on where they're coming from and not pretend to focus on where they're not coming from.

It's ridiculous? Really?

"What's significant about this bill, in addition to its contents, is that it (Congress) passed something with bipartisan support that gives us the resources to continue efforts that were well under way and demonstrates that the border is not and should not be a political issue," Napolitano said. "It is a matter of national security in which we all, both parties, have a stake."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/13/Napolitano-Border-bill-step-to-reform/UPI-81171281721073/

Actually the statistics and the people themselves say you're wrong. They readily admit to coming here pregnant to have their children born here and get free health care. The evidence has been posted in this very thread in their own words.

Actually one of the reasons that illegals are "leaving" is because enforcement and deportations are way up.



Among deported immigrants in 2008, almost one-third of the cases were due to criminal activity. “The most common categories of crime committed by aliens removed … included illegal drug activity, immigration violation and assault,” according to an annual report issued by the Office of Immigration Statistics. These activities accounted for almost two-thirds of all deportations based on criminal charges.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=157904

It's funny how my bias and my falsehoods have verifiable links and data behind them where as yours just come out of thin air.

 

Sure we do and it would help the economy anyway:

"Kevin Johnson, the dean at the UC Davis School of Law, also thinks we need to open up the borders, saying we have to think of immigration as a labor issue: "The economic studies show that in the aggregate the economy benefits from an infusion of labor into the marketplace," he says. One such study, concluded that the removal of labor mobility restrictions would raise aggregate output by about 10.5 percent in North America, gains similar in effect to reducing the capital income tax between 40 and 45 percent.

Both Legrain and Johnson cite as a model the the European Union, where goods and people move across 27 countries relatively freely. In the EU, countries as economically dissimilar as Romania (which is poorer than Mexico, based on GDP per capita) and wealthy Sweden are connected. "People move freely and it has not caused disaster," said Legrain. "On the contrary, it has been very good for the economy."

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21738


However, even if you were right, we could stagger it. Let every one who can get a job, or prove they have the means to avoid being a drain, in immediately.

 

extremist:

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qqyeb-5ZfEc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qqyeb-5ZfEc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

 

I'm coming back late to this thread and haven't had a chance to read through it since my last post but I will state openly I have not insinuated you are a xenophobe but that your argument is one. If that is what you think then I think no more needs to be said.

I am well aware that Mexico has a high degree of violence but that doesn't mean that we can presume that any single Mexican or group of Mexicans are violent. As in my San Ysidro example. That was not based upon just seeing Mexicans but noting where they were coming from and what they were doing. I only saw people coming and going from work and acting peacefully. On the contrary, you were the one who speculated on how many of them were drug dealers, gang members and or got free C-sections. Considering you weren't there to begin with and are basing your argument on a negative stereotype that is clearly xenophobic.

Also while you have cited your statistics I have cited statistics pointing out that violent crime has dropped in Southern Border states. If illegal immigrants were bringing the violence from Mexico we would see a spike in violence but what we see is the opposite.