posted
There is literally nothing being done about our boarder security. In fact, the opposite is being done, we are opening our boarders to the illegal immigrants who cross our boarders... Reagen and Clinton and Bush all were in favor of illegal immigration... but why do they claim to be in favor of defending our nation's homeland when they allow people to come here illegally? Who's to say that the next terrorist attack won't come from a Taliban inspired militia group from Mexico? What's to stop the first suitcase nuke from being smuggled across the Mexican boarder? Criticizing illegal immigration isn't racist. It's a matter of keeping our homeland safe and national security. The only people who are in favor of making illegal immigration legal hate America. They hate our safety... they want people to come and go as they please no matter what illegal things they may have on them when they come on here. Something needs to be done about illegal immigration. Opening our boarders to more illegal immigration is not the answer.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the people that I hear criticizing illegal immigration ARE being racist. I supose that it might not be the always be the case but it certainly is in letters to the editor, corespondents on the radio, tinhorn politicians, and talk in the street. Edit to add: Oh, and that suitcase has a large smelly red herring in it not a nuke.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your only issue with illegal immigration is the concern that an illegal immigrant might be carrying a bomb (or the like) then I don't think you're a racist. Mentioning the Canadian border might also help to avoid this charge.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only people who are in favor of making illegal immigration legal hate America.
Yes, that's a more rational position.
I take it you're perfectly fine with legalizing all immigrants who voluntarily carry no luggage into the US, given your 'reasoning'?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think if considerable effort was made to improve the standard of living and economies of South American countries far few would feel the need to immigrate.
I should also point out the irony in making fences to keep illegal immigrants out using illegal immigrant labour.
Its been shown that assuming you only have a single pair of hedge clippers and a bag its only roughly 2 minutes to get under, over or through the standard fences currently errected under the bush administration.
Everyone with an interest in illegal immigration should watch the episde on the subject by Penn and Teller.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually if IIRC I remember reading recently that illegal immigration levels this year were some of the lowest they've seen in a long time because of the recession and government crackdowns.
Graff the past few months there have been quite a few raids on factories known for hiring illegal immigrants. It's terrible that not only are families and communities being cut up when those immigrants are forced home, we also find out that these factory owners are basically forcing these people into de facto slavery. Just thinking about the terrible things being done makes me angry. I thought we were beyond The Jungle.
edit: btw I agree that being against illegal immigration does not make one necessarily a racist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the illegal immigrants I know are Irish. Colonel, how do you feel about terrorists with visas? They're legal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haves and have-nots are not racial qualities, but discrimination against have-nots is certainly selfish. The only reason immigration is illegal is because the people on this side of the border don't want to share. That's just childish, but no, it's not racist.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of talk radio. I like to listen to talk radio bc most of the time I think it's funny. Until I think it's sad and then I turn it off...
Look, i appreciate conservative values and all, but once you pick up the phone and the standard greeting is "You're a great American - thanks, 'You're also a great American'", i feel like it's just a bunch of dangerous rhetoric. How do you know he is a good American, just because he dialed your station?
And that's the problem with talk radio. They make points, often that I agree with, and then decide that everyone who disagrees is a "hater". A "Freedom Hater". Barrack "Hussein" Obama. When I hear them using ridiculous rhetoric to make their arguments, i cringe knowing that I share their political positions.
It is so blind and only fosters division to assume that someone disagrees with you because they are evil.
I shared this position on Illegal immigration until I spoke to my housekeeper, a Hispanic woman who has worked for our family since i was 3. When she told me about the conditions in her country, what she sacrificed in order to get here, my heart bled with compassion. And maybe i still disagree - but to call anyone who sides with her positions a HATER?
I will not call you stupid. I will not call you a moron - that is stooping to your level. But what you are is misguided, and terribly so. Take a beat to see the bigger picture.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legal Immigration needs serious reform. And my heart does feel for those who are escaping a horrible life. But I get awfully tired of living in an area where a substantial amount of crime is perpetrated by illegals. Illegals are financially draining our state and city. I'd have a lot less problem if they were here legally and paying into the system they take so much out of.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just love that Ann Coulter calls him "B Hussein Obama," and her reason for doing so is because "that's what he likes to be called." Her reasoning? Because he is using his middle name in the inaugural ceremony.
It's funny because I've never once heard her reference "G Walker Bush" before.
Anyway, I'm against illegal immigration. I'm all for legal immigration. I do think that a comprehensive look at immigration that includes renewed ties and effort to Latin and South America, both for the sake of mutual defense and political interest, and for economic benefits, in order to lessen the need to leave their own countries to make money elsewhere, and also a deterrent factor, as well as increased slots for legal immigration, and for settling those who are already here and settled in, should be done.
We need a multifaceted approach. Look at the source, home countries in poverty, and try and lift them out of it to deaden the need to leave. Look at the problem as it exists, and try to bring current illegals into the system so we can both better care for them and ourselves, and so we can make better plans for the future. And look at the draw, it being too easy to allow illegal immigrants to exist here. I think we should have an increased number of legal immigrants, and an unlimited number of guest worker visas. People won't be taken advantage of by border coyotes if they can come here to make money and then go home until the next season, and I think they'd be far more willing to participate in such a system if the advantages of legal protections, the lack of fear of being deported, and full access to a fair paycheck were all available to them. The benefits are tangible to us as well, in many, many ways.
Controlling the flow and keeping track of them all will also allow us to fix a lot of our own internal problems without worrying about the effect added pressure from illegals will have on the system, of which I think the health care system probably takes the biggest hit. In the past I've argued for tamping down on illegal immigration to give us breathing room to fix those problems, but I've since decided that it makes more sense to fix them concurrently.
I think I could actually get almost anyone on board with most of what I just suggested, unless they had some other bias holding them back. The two basic and best arguments I think are dollars and morality. Such a reform would be infinitely more profitable for the United States as a whole than either the status quo or some ridiculous rounding up and deportation of the entire illegal population. And it's also the compassionate thing to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being opposed to illegal immigration isn't racist, though as stated earlier, many who speak out against illegal immigration do so out of racism.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who actually support illegal immigration. There are people who wish to extend working visas or grant amnesty, but I believe it's not because they wish to encourage 'illegal' immigration, but because they are tired of a system that doesn't work.
I think Lyrhawn is of the right mind on how to deal with the issue, particularly in a means of keeping track of undocumented immigrants. By having a system that's easily accessible, immigrants will utilize the system for its advantages, and we have the advantage of keeping tabs on them.
There are other ways to also stave off the flow of illegal immigrants as well. Of course we should do more to enforce the border, but by also investing in the economies of the countries that supply the immigrants, we can help create new jobs in their country that will help slow the flow. Now, some will argue that we shouldn't be investing in other countries while our own economy is floundering about like a beached fish and we're hemorrhaging jobs. But as previously pointed out, our weak economy is already helping decrease the flow of immigrants.
In a robust economy, if we can invest in other countries we can build a sort of dependency on our support. Their economic well-being may eventually be tied to our continued investment. If and when we come to that point, we get a strong bargaining chip in asking for favors from the leadership of that country. We use our soft-power to demand they decrease the expedition of people from their country illegally. So in the end, we get two ways of cutting immigration from foreign investment. 1. It creates jobs in their country so that less people will feel the need to flee, and 2. If we establish ourselves as a needed presence for their continuing success, we get to make some demands on them that we wouldn't have otherwise.
I have a lot of opinions on this topic, but I'll just leave it with this for the moment. I am all for decreasing illegal immigration. But one thing I wish would be remembered more often is that people don't illegally immigrate because they're 'evil' per se, but because most wish to provide a lifestyle to their loved ones better than what they already have. If they came into our country without any adverse side effects, I would be all for them coming freely (Granting they were background checked for security reasons) to work. But because it does hurt our economy and country, we need to find a solution that protects our own citizens (as part of our Social Contract, I suppose.). I just hope we can do so without drastically harming others.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, criticizing illegal immigration may or may not be racist, depending on the reasons for the criticism. Certainly it's illegal; certainly the permeability of some areas of border raises legitimate concerns about those who want to cross our borders for reasons other than work. And there are real questions that can be asked about the value an illegal immigrant puts into the system versus the costs they may take out (hopefully to be judged on as individual a level as possible.)
But it would be somewhat hypocritical to fail to notice that many of us have ancestors who didn't exactly have their papers in order, whether they came over on the Mayflower or fled the Potato Famine or were brought against their will in the hold of a slave ship or whatever else. And being born in America isn't exactly a sign of inherent goodness, just (usually) a sign of good luck. Also, right now a great many industries exist largely because of a cheap migratory labor force; we send a very mixed message indeed when we give with one hand and condemn and take with the other.
Right now, a lot of our immigration policies are, in a word, stupid. The INS hassles laboratory scientists and engineers who come from overseas to work here, and then we're surprised when our technical jobs start to be outsourced. To a very real degree, our diversity is our strength. While I somewhat think Bush's "guest worker" policy proposals may not have had the best of intentions, they may have been pretty good ideas.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who actually support illegal immigration. There are people who wish to extend working visas or grant amnesty, but I believe it's not because they wish to encourage 'illegal' immigration, but because they are tired of a system that doesn't work.
I'm willing to support illegal immigration until we have working unskilled labor immigration. Maybe it's because I'm from Florida where it's already ok if you're Cuban. Maybe it's because my stepdad worked construction and Belle's argument that it puts American construction workers out of jobs sounds like a positive.
I think my biggest problem with the illegal immigration = easy terrorism charge is that making immigration legal won't change that. If the unskilled Mexican laborers can figure out how to get in the country now, the specaially trained for that purpose terrorist certainly will later. There's no such thing as security that can never be breached.
And Blayne, I totally agree with you. If we'd help improve the economies of our neighbors, we could all be happy and prosperous together.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the conflagration of illegal immigration and terrorism is a red herring.
All of the the 9/11 terrorists entered through legal border crossings. There has never been an incident recorded of a terrorist attack within the US by anyone who crossed a land border (Mexico or Canada) illegally. To the best of my knowledge, there are no cases where terrorists have been caught trying to enter or having entered the country except at a legal border crossings.
There are estimated to be 12 million illegal immigrants living in the US. Roughly half of them entered the country legally and the other half entered illegally.
There are some legitimate reasons to be concerned about illegal immigration, terrorism simply isn't one of them. In my mind the biggest two are drug trafficking, workers rights, and tax evasion on the part of employers. The last two are strong reasons for creating good and functional methods for legal immigration of unskilled labor.
I think there are many dishonest employers who like the status quo because it allows them to get workers under the table to avoid payroll taxes, insurance cost, minimum wage laws etc and as an added benefit they get employees who can't complain because they have no legal rights. If we made it easy enough for unskilled workers to get visa's to enter and work in the country legally, not only would the coyote trade loose its popularity but dishonest employers would find it much harder to cheat their employees and the government.
Criticizing illegal immigrants may not necessarily be racist, but it almost always is evidence of unjust prejudice against the poor. When it isn't, they is generally equal or greater criticism against the people who give them jobs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to add that I have heard people here at hatrack express criticism against illegal employers. I remember a discussion ages back where Belle complained about these people and the unfair competition they gave to honest businesses.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just love that Ann Coulter calls him "B Hussein Obama," and her reason for doing so is because "that's what he likes to be called." Her reasoning? Because he is using his middle name in the inaugural ceremony.
I think it is also partly because of President Bush being referred to as Dubya, Shrub, King George and on and on. Obama will most likely pick up several nicknames during his presidency.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am against illegal immigration because the bad results ratio is much higher than good results ratio. They may pay taxes, but it gets swallowed up in crime, education expenses with little return, overburdened medical services and other things eating up more expenses than immigrants. The idea that there might be terrorist is, I agree, a red herring.
The reason Canada isn't much of a concern is that the bad habits of the "Northern Neighbors" have not been proven to be dangerous or expensive. The idea that illegal aliens help the economy has not been proven. In fact, with or without them the U.S. economy has dipped and risen. If they will take U.S. American jobs that citizens won't, then shame on the citizens for the laziness. The constant harping on unemployment averages should at least show there are plenty of people who could take them. That is, unless the numbers include illegals and that puts the lie to them here for jobs.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ann Coulter did something I absolutely found hilarious, she was on the O'Really factor and said she "wouldn't listen to anyone who sold less books then she did" and the argument ensued was hilarious as O'Reily claimed he sold more books thus she would agree with him, and you get the picture.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The idea that illegal aliens help the economy has not been proven. In fact, with or without them the U.S. economy has dipped and risen.
An odd line of argument. With or without immigrants, period, the US would have business cycles.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, that is my point. Those who are "for" illegal immigration have argued that they hold up the U.S. economy.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mucus, that is my point. Those who are "for" illegal immigration have argued that they hold up the U.S. economy.
I am for "illegal" immigration because I don't recognize the authority of any government to restrict movement over an imaginary line. Nor do I recognize their authority to tell me who I can and cannot contract with, simply based on an arbitrary distinction between who is a citizen and who isn't.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mucus, that is my point. Those who are "for" illegal immigration have argued that they hold up the U.S. economy.
No. The ones that argue for illegal immigration (on an economic basis) argue that they *improve* the US economy, not that they somehow magically prevent business cycles.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just love that Ann Coulter calls him "B Hussein Obama," and her reason for doing so is because "that's what he likes to be called." Her reasoning? Because he is using his middle name in the inaugural ceremony.
I think it is also partly because of President Bush being referred to as Dubya, Shrub, King George and on and on. Obama will most likely pick up several nicknames during his presidency.
I think people would tell you that the difference is that Bush earned those nicknames, whereas calling Obama that, before he even takes office, is an attempt to conjure fear and loathing.
I'm sure Obama will pick up names in office. But no one called Clinton Bubba or Slick Willy before his White House indiscretions, and no one called Bush King George before he was perceived as a tyrant.
Thus, referring to Obama by a name that has been associated with mayhem and terror for the last 20 years or so has nothing to do with Obama's actions in earning the nickname, and can thus reasonably be assumed to have come about as something other than an earned nickname. It's also far outside the scale of the sort of nicknames that were given to the last two presidents, which were playful and directly related to personal actions.
PS. I've never heard Bush referred to as Shrub before.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have. Many times. It is exactly like the unflattering nicknames given to past and present Presidents. "Slick Willie" comes from Clinton's time as governor, and some of the other unflattering terms came from facts that came out in the campaign. People were calling President Bush names before he even reached the White House.
I don't like any of the name calling, but saying earlier ones were justified and this is totally different is mistaken.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Haves and have-nots are not racial qualities, but discrimination against have-nots is certainly selfish. The only reason immigration is illegal is because the people on this side of the border don't want to share. That's just childish, but no, it's not racist.
That is possible the most simplified excuse for an explanation I have ever heard. You didn't even forming the straw into a man-shape, you left it in a pile.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard GW Bush's supporter calling him "Dubya" before the 2000 election. It is my understanding that this nickname was not invented by his political detractors but was much much older than his political career, dating perhaps back to his secondary school days.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I didn't know that (about the book). What's it about? And fugu, are there less dickish ways to make a point? Yeah, I think there are.
It's not so much justification as it is reasoning. Someone does this and you call him this, well, it's not fair and I don't like it either, but it makes sense, and it's mostly harmless. Calling Bush King George as a way to vent frustrations at what many thought were abuses of power isn't particularly harmful to the country.
Calling Obama "B. Hussein Obama" from the same people who tried so hard to make an image of him as a terrorist sympathizer and secret Muslim who isn't even an eligible American citizen looks a lot more like a concerted effort to keep those feelings, fears and anger alive than it is a harmless frustrated nickname. If they started calling him Dumbo because he has big ears, I wouldn't mind in the same way. Or if they made fun of his stammering/long pauses in his off the cuff responses, I also wouldn't mind in the same way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't sure when I wrote the question. Then I checked, and wrote the addendum. It was me having a conversation with myself, not being snide to you.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry then, though without knowing it was an edit, I imagine you can see how it would look that way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
'twasn't an edit, I just wrote as I noticed my results. But yes, I see how it would look like that. Rest assured that I was only recollecting and verifying that recollection.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
!!!!HUSSEIN!!!! 
