Immigration - US vs Europe

Rosh, do not mean to offend, but I thought you where in the USN? I would think they would not need MREs on anything larger then a raft.

I'm almost always pro-Immigrant in terms of people coming to the US. Here, we are all immigrants, and I do not believe we can judge those who try hard to come and do honest work in our country, by whatever means they get here.

However, even though I *do* recognize that nations within the EU have radically diffirent immigration policies both to eachother and the US, I belive by EU we are to understand the vaugley similar French annd German systems, as the UK's actually works.
 
France and Germany are 2 out of 25 EU countries. Making up for less than one third of our population.

By what logic, EXACTLY, do you propose to indicate these two systems, which are pretty much wildly different from one another anyway, as a basis of comparison for "the EU" when Italy and Spain already are very different, not to mention our Eastern friends?

Again, you fail to understand the scale of difference. If you don't desist, I'll be forced to use Texas as a future basis of comparison for any and all events in the US.

As for US immigration, I have it to understand that one of the sensitive points in Bush's rulership is his failure to keep the Mexicans and other Latinos from flooding over your borders? Tolerance tested.
 
Kharn said:
Again, you fail to understand the scale of difference. If you don't desist, I'll be forced to use Texas as a future basis of comparison for any and all events in the US.
Using Mexico and Canada as a basis of comparison for events in the US is more akin to CCR's unfaltering obstinacy.
 
John Uskglass said:
Rosh, do not mean to offend, but I thought you where in the USN? I would think they would not need MREs on anything larger then a raft.

No...but not all squids are always on ship. Some do have to hike to remote posts to perform equipment upgrades. :D

Kharn said:
As for US immigration, I have it to understand that one of the sensitive points in Bush's rulership is his failure to keep the Mexicans and other Latinos from flooding over your borders? Tolerance tested.

Operation Wetback II, to go with Operation Breakfast II? :lol:
 
Elissar said:
Whoa Whoa Whoa there rosh, Whats wrong with MRE's?

I happen to like them.... especially the newest ones... come with milkshakes and cappucino's in em... I do miss the old dehydrated fruit squares though...

Good God! When I think back on all the times I sat there looking at a dehydrated pork patty...
 
No...but not all squids are always on ship. Some do have to hike to remote posts to perform equipment upgrades.
Hehe.

But I've heard (mostly from Apocalpsye Now) that the Navy has better food. Confirm/deny?

By what logic, EXACTLY, do you propose to indicate these two systems, which are pretty much wildly different from one another anyway, as a basis of comparison for "the EU" when Italy and Spain already are very different, not to mention our Eastern friends?
Be fair Kharn. Oversimplifying Europe is what the EU was founded on.

And to be honest, I do not know that much about the diffirences.

Care to explain? You've certainly done enough screaming about it.


As for US immigration, I have it to understand that one of the sensitive points in Bush's rulership is his failure to keep the Mexicans and other Latinos from flooding over your borders? Tolerance tested.
A lot of Americans don't have that much of a problem with the rise in the Latino problem. If they where not needed by the economy they would not come.
 
John Uskglass said:
No...but not all squids are always on ship. Some do have to hike to remote posts to perform equipment upgrades.
Hehe.

But I've heard (mostly from Apocalpsye Now) that the Navy has better food. Confirm/deny?

It depends on what kind of ship, station, etc. Shipboard fare isn't that particularly spectacular, and shore galleys of course have better fare.

A lot of Americans don't have that much of a problem with the rise in the Latino problem. If they where not needed by the economy they would not come.

True, they don't really have a problem with increasing Latino populations in places like Chicago. However, in the southwest and even in Utah, it's getting pretty damn insane. As for why they come, these breeders have been doing it for years in hopping over the border to both get free health care and a US citizen in the family. Or to work for the lowest bidder, when not even US citizens could afford to live at those kind of wages. Really, CCR, you need to look at the problems Cali, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas all have with this.

Their reasons for coming over have jack shit to do with the economy except to skullfuck it and welfare programs by not putting anything back into them. I have very dim views on the welfare mom cattle who suck on welfare checks as long as they keep popping out kids, and that is the same game that has been played for well over 20 years by the welfare wetbacks, it is now into its second and third generations of mothers doing this as a practice.

Fuck it. If they want to have a dozen kids, and have hospital care when women have been having natural childbirth for thousands of years all over the world and even in the rural US still do, they can work to support them, and then try their damnedest to prevent the otherwise useless shits from joining the rest of the welfare cunt-squirts that keep filling up the gangs. I might think a bit better of these wastes if they weren't actively shooting at people and causing problems, and if the parents did something other than treat the child as a welfare check. See, I can't really condone them crossing to make a better life, because I have yet to see anything good from the illegals crossing over, not even for their own lives and family.

So if they are useless to humanity and the country, as they intend to suck welfare and not return it as they breed more gangs into our cities as well as the next generation of welfare wetbacks, AND can't be bothered to officially immigrate, then they can die at the border for all I care.
 
John Uskglass said:
Be fair Kharn. Oversimplifying Europe is what the EU was founded on.

Not really. United despite our differences is a EU motto. United because we're all basically the same anyway isn't.

John Uskglass said:
And to be honest, I do not know that much about the diffirences.

Care to explain? You've certainly done enough screaming about it.

I can not explain it fully because I do not know, by heart, the immigration policies of all EU members, but let's pick out some random examples;

1. By the French constitution it is illegal for anyone including government bodies to make distinctions between one French citizen and another based on colour or creed. Because of this, positive discrimination or affirmative action has been impossible in France for the past few decades. They can not single out and raise the immigrants by their own law. This is so for France and not so for any other country.

2. Holland has a significant lesser amount of segregation than France, especially since there has been an active policy of mixing immigrants with "the natives" in the cities, preventing the forming of segregated blocks/ghettoes. Surprisingly, though, the rate of intermarriage between immigrants and autochthones, a significant way of "reading" integration, is lower in the Netherlands than it is in France.

3. England, while far from the model of integration and having had riots in its past, differs in giving the immigrants more oppertunities and less supports, effectively resulting in an integrated section and a chanceless impoverished section that is not really a threat. Muslim extremists as a form of muslim upper-classies nonwithstanding.

4. Spain, the leaky arm of Europe, has a constant trickle of immigrants, being the only country of the EU and the Schengen-countries with a land-border with Africa (Spain has a small enclave in North Marocco). As such it is a move-through country, where immigrants arrive to go into the rest of the EU, meaning its problems tend to be a lot different.
However, it has its own immigrant issues, and a while ago a sweeping move was made to solve them by giving all the illegals passports (more than a hundred thousand of them in any case, if I recall correctly). This move would be inconcieveable in countries like the Netherlands, where we're actively extraditing the immigrants back to their countries and even refuse to care for them after they were almost burnt alive in our care in our prisons.

5. France and Great Britain mostly have immigrants from their former colonies, meaning those immigrants already speak French or English. This to the great shock of countries like Germany and the Netherlands where one of the biggest problems is the lack of ability of the immigrants (often from Marocco and Turkey) to speak the native tongue. Hell, if a Dutch allochthone speaks Dutch as well as those French rioters speak French, we'd consider him integrated.

There's some random examples. I'm not equipped to write a casy study on "immigration across the EU", though. If you want to know about it, I suggest you look it up.
 
I am not so sure I am with you, Rosh, on this.

Myths and Facts

Ok, yes there are welfare payments given to women who have too many babies, and thus the state subsidies maternity leave. I am not sure if illegal immigrants get those benefits as many worry that by being "officially noticed" they might also attract the attention of the Homeland Security. And if Homeland Security is not paying attention to whether welfare payments are going to long-term illegal immigrants, than that's just one more fuck up from an already highly fucked up system.

NAFTA was originally between the US and Canada. Mexico got it because, in part, there was a belief by encouraging development in Mexico you could keep the Mexicans there.

But the thing is, like it or not, there is a huge need for cheap labor in the US that creates a demand for illegal immigrants. Considering how crappy situation are South of the Border, I would take the risk to jump the fence and come to Gringoland too. But from what I can see most of the illegals are guys, most work physical jobs and most eventually want to go home with a little extra money in their pockets.
In turn the US gets to keep its prices on many good and services- from restaurant work to produce, on the cheap, and counterbalances inflation. Cheap consumer goods make for a happy voting public. Get some illegals to work in home construction and you get cheaper homes and more profit for the developer (and if the worker accidently gets buried in the foundation.... well he's not supposed to be here anyway.)

If there is a problem with illegals, than the government shouldn't be targeting the workers but the companies that pay them. Because there are Visa programs that allow workers to come to the US and work for short-terms contract and then go home. These are H2A Visa and these folks get legal protection, can paid a decent rate an eventually go home.

What worries me about illegal immigrants, and immigrants in general, is that this is a population that is generally vulnerable and has become the target of the far right. A couple of weeks ago the Klan held a rally in Texas against Hispanic Immigration. Most Klan Rallies run the risk of a riot, but this time there was no opposition. Blacks see hispanics as a threat to their livelihood (never mind that Latinos are usually very hard working) and in competition for social services. Civil Rights applies only when its your civil rights at stake.

So the Far Right gets to use that as a policy to gain legitimacy, support and even members- to organizations like viligante groups and the KKK. Frankly, if the Klan supports it, than it probably sucks.

And to be fair, I know a few illegal immigrants through my wife's connections with the Brazilian and Latin community. Most of those folks are working hard and saving, trying to make a better life for themselves and generally good folks. I got no problem with that.
 
welsh said:
I am not so sure I am with you, Rosh, on this.

Myths and Facts

All about LEGAL immigrants, and I have nothing against them. Yes, my family emigrated to the US about a hundred and twenty years ago, as did everyone eventually emigrate to the US, unless they are Native American (which I can claim a bloodline of, too). At least they had the honor and decency to not be wetbacks and do things the right way. :D

Ok, yes there are welfare payments given to women who have too many babies, and thus the state subsidies maternity leave. I am not sure if illegal immigrants get those benefits as many worry that by being "officially noticed" they might also attract the attention of the Homeland Security.

Pffft...Homeland Security doesn't really give a shit about them, and vice versa, really. Cheap labor suits the modern Republican way of life. ;) Otherwise, there wouldn't be the whole landscaping crew, only one work visa among them, working out in the open. Guess who trims the lawn at the local Federal Building? Illegals, except for one, and overlooked because the company who has the contracting bid hires whomever they want, and nobody bothers to do a real background check on them. The same goes for many fast food places, believe it or not. Yes, the "security" in this country is that shit, and therefore Homeland Security means little to the illegals in turn.

Check this shit out. I verified outside of that site, but that has a nice collection of how the immigration state of the US is FUCKED. INS in this country is incompetent, and the Department of Homeland Security is just a blow-hard patch to cover up for those whose job it REALLY was, the INS'.

And if Homeland Security is not paying attention to whether welfare payments are going to long-term illegal immigrants, than that's just one more fuck up from an already highly fucked up system.

Indeed. It's like trying to close a sucking chest wound with a band-aid. Now add the fact that the number is increasing yearly and it starts to lead to social system decay. Well, it's there already, not much "leading" to do.

But the thing is, like it or not, there is a huge need for cheap labor in the US that creates a demand for illegal immigrants.

No, it is more like cheap labor is wanted because it has less overhead cost, and therefore they don't have to pay full wages and other obligations as an employer. Then people wonder why there is a growing number of homeless and jobless US citizens in the SW as well. You know, the people who would had been doing those jobs, but apparently want too much by expecting minimum wage pay.

Considering how crappy situation are South of the Border, I would take the risk to jump the fence and come to Gringoland too. But from what I can see most of the illegals are guys, most work physical jobs and most eventually want to go home with a little extra money in their pockets.

And then do nothing at all resembling anything like the list of myths and facts PDF you posted, as they do not pay taxes (not even wage taxes - because you need a SSN to file them); they will use emergency medical care to make it official that their newborn is a citizen (therefore they CAN collect welfare for a newborn US citizen and remain in country as their sole guardian despite living with an illegal husband and a few other children); they do not really contribute back to the economy because their money is going elsewhere or was welfare to start; they do take jobs from those who were previously employed in the middle class and were trying to find a job since the one they spent money on to go to college for, or were trained for a few years through tech support, was sent to some guy nobody can understand in India;

Really, I have no problem with those WITH work visas, as they are doing it right. Those who don't bother to do it the right way, and cause only problems, don't get any sympathy from me.

In turn the US gets to keep its prices on many good and services- from restaurant work to produce, on the cheap, and counterbalances inflation. Cheap consumer goods make for a happy voting public. Get some illegals to work in home construction and you get cheaper homes and more profit for the developer (and if the worker accidently gets buried in the foundation.... well he's not supposed to be here anyway.)

So you want to live in a home built from uncertified labor? Really, going cheap only works if you are pandering for those even cheaper, and their presence is NOT doing the economy any more help, even if you take out the welfare breeders. All it does is fuck with the jobs, that while no white boy would consider, many still did rely on for income. So instead of paying a citizen, which would ensure money going back into the economy, it goes to someone that might not even be qualified to do the job they are filling.

The US already has cheap consumer goods. It's called China.

If there is a problem with illegals, than the government shouldn't be targeting the workers but the companies that pay them. Because there are Visa programs that allow workers to come to the US and work for short-terms contract and then go home. These are H2A Visa and these folks get legal protection, can paid a decent rate an eventually go home.

The government should target both those that hire and also the workers themselves. The site I linked to up above has more about the gaping holes in this system.

What worries me about illegal immigrants, and immigrants in general, is that this is a population that is generally vulnerable and has become the target of the far right. A couple of weeks ago the Klan held a rally in Texas against Hispanic Immigration. Most Klan Rallies run the risk of a riot, but this time there was no opposition. Blacks see hispanics as a threat to their livelihood (never mind that Latinos are usually very hard working) and in competition for social services. Civil Rights applies only when its your civil rights at stake.

So the Far Right gets to use that as a policy to gain legitimacy, support and even members- to organizations like viligante groups and the KKK. Frankly, if the Klan supports it, than it probably sucks.

I don't know which latinos you are talking about, but it's not the illegal-spawned gangs that are becoming an increasing problem, I am sure. Those do a great job at working hard at what they do, even better than some of the "black gangs", and can't be easily deported due to being a US citizen.

And to be fair, I know a few illegal immigrants through my wife's connections with the Brazilian and Latin community. Most of those folks are working hard and saving, trying to make a better life for themselves and generally good folks. I got no problem with that.

I know a few like that. You know what? I don't care, because they are not doing it correctly. That is a crime they have committed, and that is their responsibility.

Watch Mind of Mencia on Comedy Central sometime. Carlos puts it quite well, especially about why he moved out of the barrios. Remember, 90% of America either is clueless or has a warped image about what they are truly like. Having worked with INS in San Diego before the INS apparently went to shit (we had an airman hiding his illegal mother on base), I got quite an eye-opening when going through those neighborhoods and also working with the caseworkers and INS deputies. Their database of known gang members was primarily filled with those who had illegal parents, and they ran away to join those gangs.

When they stop the crazy shooting, then I'll care as to whether they live or die in some other way than "I hope they take each other out without any innocent bystanders".
 
welsh said:
But as mentioned elsewhere - terrorists are traditionally middle to upper class and educated.

Depends, by middle class, are you comparing to modern, "Western" social middle class, or that of a poverty-stricken country with turmoil written all over it? Education can also be extremely varied. Hell, here in the U.S. students are always being molded by what is taught generaly through the eyes of an American who loves his country, or an American who hates it, and I'm sure the rest of the world is no different, no country is anywhere near perfect (though some nationalists like to think they are). The same, if not worse, can be said about third-world countries.

Simply put, radicals and scumbags are all over the world, and sometimes differ from eachother, and sometimes don't.
 
Fireblade said:
Damn people, it's not like McDonalds is suffering for lack of customers in other countries as well. You laugh at it, but apparently they are making some pretty fine money exporting it to countries like France and such, with no lack of people willing to buy the swill. That picture hardly makes sense...
The point is I never see people that fat in Sweden (I guess it's about the same in France), while I did it almost all of the time in the United States, especially in smaller cities. Conclusion: There must be something that differs, no?
 
I think a lot of the problem with illegal immigrants is that much of it goes unreported and unrecognized simply because these folks are mostly living off the grid. It is possible to live a pretty good life in the US without being legally recognized.

The problem with gangs in the city isn't just because they are illegal. I also did work in New York with youth crime and a lot of the kids that were getting into trouble weren't illegal, but were just the kids of immigrants who were having trouble fitting in, mostly Asian kids.

But even then, you still got every other kind of ethnicity creating it's own gang. Urban areas, especially urban poor areas, are breeding grounds for organized criminals. Gangs have an easy time finding opportunities for commerce (racketeering, extortion, gambling, drugs, prostitution), poor areas don't get the same kind of police protection and because it's hostile, the cops don't want to go there and when they do they come hard- creating community distrust. It's not just illegals, and trimming them off the top isn't going to resolve that problem although it might improve things a bit.

San Diego is going to have problems. It is a major transit area for illegal immigration just because of its location on the border. Hell, go over to Tijuana and you got illegals coming from all over central america, trying to get across the border and it's not that hard to do. There's a book, Across the Wire, that talks about this in Tijuana and it's a fucking mess on that side, so no surprise its a mess on the US side.

Yet San Diego is still one of the nicest places in the US to live. Demographically it's as if you replaced the African-American community with a Latino community.

But a lot of the workers that are illegal do figure on the books since the companies have to account for their labor to the IRS should they get auditted. Hell, when I was working as a deli clerk, I was off the books, but still figured in their accounts (though perhaps not at the rate I was being paid or for the hours I was working). Same goes for a lot of illegal immigrants. Those folks are never going to collect their taxes.

Then you got property taxes, sales taxes and other types of taxes that they are supposed to pay and won't see. These folks are not going to see their social security payments. Compare the costs in taxes to the costs in services they consume and I am willing to bet that illegals are still consuming less than they pay in.

While in law school I worked in a restaurant with an immigrant crew. These guys all shared the same house (must have been 15 of them living there) and all of them were thinking about going home after they made their money. I think I was the only one back there who was legal and spoke no Spanish. But the boss would have hired more college or high school students, but either the kids didn't want to work or they were too undependable. The Latin guys worked hard and took it very seriously. I had a lot of respect for their work ethic.

And while I have little doubt that some illegals try to get legal by having kids, I think most of your illegal immigrants are still guys trying to do better on this side of the border than that side. There is a bar that does Salsa night in C'ville- it's all latino guys and fat divorced white women. No latinas at all. While these guys may congregate in cities and may take opportunities in crime, your latino immigrant workers are now all over the US.

My wife's friend was illegal over from Spain. She and her husband were in the restaurant business in Florida and Virginia and then took advantage of one of the amnesty programs to get legal. One of the conditions was that they had to pay nearly 50K in back taxes to become legal.

Which is one of the reasons amnesty programs are not such a bad idea. A lot of the illegals who are in the US would love to become legal in the US, but they need to pay their taxes back. Given a chance, they would do it.

Don't get me wrong Rosh, illegal immigration is a big problem in the US and I have a lot more respect to the guys who come over legally. But it is a lot more difficult to come over legally than it was, and I believe immigration has become a lot more selective about who it lets over.

I am not sure if blaming the illegals for the problem is necessarily the answer. Sure you will get some bad folks, but most of them just want to work and improve their quality of life, just like the rest of us. The regulation of this is fucked up and incompetent. It could be better and in the process, these folks could be documented and incorporated into the system so they are both paying their share and reaping the benefits. Tighten the border, sure. But also be a bit more realistic and fair with who gets into the country. You can't be selecting just the best and brightest, not when the country's immigrants have historically been poor and desperate.

What worries me is that a lot of the animosity against illegals is based on fears that America is becoming too hispanic, that it's loosing it's culture. But those kinds of prejudices existed between the Irish and the Italians, and then the Italians and the Puerto Ricans in New York as neighborhoods and communities transform. Immigrants have always been generally poor folks looking for a better life and they have also been crapped on by the generations of immigrants that came before them. From what I have seen the hispanics are generally pretty family oriented, hard working, decent consumers, and when legal very pro-US.
 
TinyTeeth said:
Fireblade said:
Damn people, it's not like McDonalds is suffering for lack of customers in other countries as well. You laugh at it, but apparently they are making some pretty fine money exporting it to countries like France and such, with no lack of people willing to buy the swill. That picture hardly makes sense...
The point is I never see people that fat in Sweden (I guess it's about the same in France), while I did it almost all of the time in the United States, especially in smaller cities. Conclusion: There must be something that differs, no?

Silly me, because you observed it it simply MUST be true, as opposed to someone who, say, might live in the United States?
 
welsh said:
I think a lot of the problem with illegal immigrants is that much of it goes unreported and unrecognized simply because these folks are mostly living off the grid. It is possible to live a pretty good life in the US without being legally recognized.

The problem with gangs in the city isn't just because they are illegal. I also did work in New York with youth crime and a lot of the kids that were getting into trouble weren't illegal, but were just the kids of immigrants who were having trouble fitting in, mostly Asian kids.

Exactly. But in the SW, you not only have anchor baby gangs of Mexican descent, you also have more than a few of Chinese and Cambodian. The reason why this happens, as I have stated before, is because the illegal trash doesn't care to take care of the child aside from making sure they get their next welfare check for said child. That is not only causing problems for the US and citizenry, but it isn't a way for any child to grow up.

But even then, you still got every other kind of ethnicity creating it's own gang. Urban areas, especially urban poor areas, are breeding grounds for organized criminals. Gangs have an easy time finding opportunities for commerce (racketeering, extortion, gambling, drugs, prostitution), poor areas don't get the same kind of police protection and because it's hostile, the cops don't want to go there and when they do they come hard- creating community distrust. It's not just illegals, and trimming them off the top isn't going to resolve that problem although it might improve things a bit.

Where better to hide than in gang-infested areas? Crime is also dominant factor with illegals, as it is estimated that 35-45% of illegals come here for welfare and crime. It then becomes easier to coyote over more illegals once there is a criminal base, and that is how several Mexican gangs are now operating in Arizona and Cali.

San Diego is going to have problems.

They already do. Badly.

It is a major transit area for illegal immigration just because of its location on the border. Hell, go over to Tijuana and you got illegals coming from all over central america, trying to get across the border and it's not that hard to do. There's a book, Across the Wire, that talks about this in Tijuana and it's a fucking mess on that side, so no surprise its a mess on the US side.

Yup, turned into an art form, and there's books on how to defraud the US welfare system, which states or businesses commit felonies by accepting the Matrica Consular (or whatever the hell it is called) as legitimate US ID, and how to tie up the legal system in loopholes as you stay in the US while being taken care of at taxpayer expense in prisons. Speaking of prisons, illegals also cause more internal problems with them due to being mostly gang-related. And yet they are put alongside our own convicts, regardless of what they did and what risk of life the gangers represent. Fuck that, make an illegal alien prison and treat it like a Gulag, then see how they like to abuse the system.

Yet San Diego is still one of the nicest places in the US to live. Demographically it's as if you replaced the African-American community with a Latino community.

No, several latino communities, most of which are at each other's throat. The gangs represented by African-Americans are downright polite compared to how the latino gangs act.

But a lot of the workers that are illegal do figure on the books since the companies have to account for their labor to the IRS should they get auditted. Hell, when I was working as a deli clerk, I was off the books, but still figured in their accounts (though perhaps not at the rate I was being paid or for the hours I was working). Same goes for a lot of illegal immigrants. Those folks are never going to collect their taxes.

Unless they get a forged SSN, claim taxes, and get much more back as they breed like rabbits to take advantage of the tax refund as well as a larger welfare check for having that many spawnlings. Then they become a tax fund sinkhole.

Then you got property taxes, sales taxes and other types of taxes that they are supposed to pay and won't see. These folks are not going to see their social security payments. Compare the costs in taxes to the costs in services they consume and I am willing to bet that illegals are still consuming less than they pay in.

They get government-backed home loans (which means the taxpayers pick up the tab for it), in-state tuition from colleges over real citizens, and much more. They don't have to pay taxes for most aspects of civilian life, but they still drain quite a bit. From anchor baby care, to welfare, to our prison system, illegals are costing a fuckload more than they pay in.

While in law school I worked in a restaurant with an immigrant crew. These guys all shared the same house (must have been 15 of them living there) and all of them were thinking about going home after they made their money. I think I was the only one back there who was legal and spoke no Spanish. But the boss would have hired more college or high school students, but either the kids didn't want to work or they were too undependable. The Latin guys worked hard and took it very seriously. I had a lot of respect for their work ethic.

I know many who do have a respectable work ethic. That is why they get work visas. Those who do not do it right are only causing problems, no matter how dilligently they work.

And while I have little doubt that some illegals try to get legal by having kids, I think most of your illegal immigrants are still guys trying to do better on this side of the border than that side.

Given that our Federal prisons are 35% filled with illegals, mostly gang members, and most large cities have a problem holding the number of illegal or anchor-born gangers in prison, I really doubt that.

Given that 300,000 anchor babies per year are put onto the taxpayer bill for health care and then onto WIC and welfare care, I really doubt that.

Given that 35-45% of the 3 MIL/year illegals are crossing to suck up welfare or to commit crimes, I really doubt that.

There is a bar that does Salsa night in C'ville- it's all latino guys and fat divorced white women. No latinas at all. While these guys may congregate in cities and may take opportunities in crime, your latino immigrant workers are now all over the US.

Yes, given the way the produce farmers were trying to validate using illegal aliens to keep produce prices down, when in fact it does nothing but lower overhead for the farmers and cause a social program sinkhole that taxpayers have to pick up the bills for.

My wife's friend was illegal over from Spain. She and her husband were in the restaurant business in Florida and Virginia and then took advantage of one of the amnesty programs to get legal. One of the conditions was that they had to pay nearly 50K in back taxes to become legal.

Then Bush Jr. wants to make it free.

Which is one of the reasons amnesty programs are not such a bad idea. A lot of the illegals who are in the US would love to become legal in the US, but they need to pay their taxes back. Given a chance, they would do it.

HAH! The problem with this is when they become legal, they can't scalp civilian wages anymore, and have to go workless and homeless along with the legal civilians who also had the audacity to expect to be paid minimum wage. You know, like the illegals who turned to crime when they couldn't even take jobs from other wetbacks.

Don't get me wrong Rosh, illegal immigration is a big problem in the US and I have a lot more respect to the guys who come over legally. But it is a lot more difficult to come over legally than it was, and I believe immigration has become a lot more selective about who it lets over.

So? I don't see any point in rewarding someone for essentially invading another country, North America Fucked Trade Agreement or not. See, I might be a little sympathetic, but when the big three move most of their production down into Mexico to take advantage of the cheaper labor, what makes them think there is any work to be had here other than scalping minimum wage jobs? Scalping they can't do when they become legal.

I am not sure if blaming the illegals for the problem is necessarily the answer. Sure you will get some bad folks, but most of them just want to work and improve their quality of life, just like the rest of us.

Sorry...am I the only one who understands the significance of illegally crossing a sovereign country's border?

The regulation of this is fucked up and incompetent. It could be better and in the process, these folks could be documented and incorporated into the system so they are both paying their share and reaping the benefits.

This assumes they want to pay their fair share, versus suck welfare and commit crimes, including violating a border and numerous Federal laws during their stay.

Tighten the border, sure. But also be a bit more realistic and fair with who gets into the country. You can't be selecting just the best and brightest, not when the country's immigrants have historically been poor and desperate.

Sure, we could use all of the unskilled and uneducated labor we can get, from the generations of an entire ethnic subculture that makes a business of being illegal to abuse the US system. You seem to think that they would want to become legal - if they wanted to do so, then they would have done it legally. Evidence of the appalling number of foreign criminals and welfare recipiants in this country says otherwise, and these people aren't looking to get real jobs in the most part. They do what can be done with unskilled labor, and get the job by agreeing to a wage far under any state minimum.

What worries me is that a lot of the animosity against illegals is based on fears that America is becoming too hispanic, that it's loosing it's culture. But those kinds of prejudices existed between the Irish and the Italians, and then the Italians and the Puerto Ricans in New York as neighborhoods and communities transform. Immigrants have always been generally poor folks looking for a better life and they have also been crapped on by the generations of immigrants that came before them. From what I have seen the hispanics are generally pretty family oriented, hard working, decent consumers, and when legal very pro-US.

When legal. That is the defining point. Most illegals are NOT interested in upholding citizenship details, but instead are looking for a quicker buck than dealing with life in their own country. To the point of the Mexican government making one FUCKLOAD of a profit from doing this. And yet US citizens will vote people into office that will make it even more lucrative for the Mexican government to get more money for this.

I don't have anything against hispanics, and nothing against anchor babies that have done something with their life - Carlos Mencia included. It is the abusers that don't plan on putting anything back into the system because they want to take the easy way through life by taking advantage of another country's welfare system that get my ire, and believe it or not, a substantial number of wetbacks are only here to cause problems. Really, would Canadians like it if US citizens started to make forged ID cards to take advantage of Canada's health care system? Oh, wait, that already is happening, and it isn't liked nor is it legal, and nor should it be excused.

Then we also have to take a look at the crime rates involving immigrants in the past. There are a few selective examples, but nothing as widespread or bad as it currently is. The immigration rates, during events like the potato famine in Ireland, are also astoundingly diverse. They were shit upon, even being legal. The problems caused here were entirely based upon the immigrants being Irish, and not upon their legal state. The modern illegals do get what they deserve in most cases, as some illegals even make a profit by doing the same slum lord shit to their "own people", after they have bought a house with an insured govt. home loan that even common citizens can't take advantage of because they are white.

A million Irish came here due to the potato famine, over the course of the famine. Three million wetbacks invade the US yearly, and using the conservative number of just 35% of which going to crime and welfare, means that this is an epidemic to a level that the US has NEVER seen before.

So who is paying the price for US lawmakers using their office to make money from illegal aliens?
That's right, you are.
 
welsh said:
There are few North African or Turkish representatives in French or German politics.
Yet these are sizeable minorities.... Strange.
Oh rly?

Our largest minority are Bavarians, and I feel we're well represented in politics. Just kidding.
The largest ethnic minority are the Turkish people with about three percent of the population, and I think they are quite well represented. Without having numbers at hand, I can assert that several* members of our parliament are Turkish. I can't say if there are more or less than the eighteen, though. I don't really care, either.

*I do realize that this hardly contradicts the assertion that "There are few (...) representatives" but even if the Turkish population be perfectly mirrored in our parliament they would still be few. It can't be helped since our minorities really are of minor size. Anything more than few would mean they are over-represented.
 
More Immigration

Come hither

Dec 1st 2005 | TUCSON
From The Economist print edition

George Bush has promoted a sensible immigration plan, to the horror of many of his supporters. But the devil is in the details

THERE is a state of emergency on the border between Arizona and Mexico, with all the confusion that entails. The radio hisses: “We've got a ‘failure to yield'.” A Border Patrol agent has ordered a vehicle to pull over and seen it speed off instead. He needs back-up. Patrolman Jim Hawkins races towards the scene. Passing a suspicious-looking pick-up truck en route, he sighs that he doesn't have time to stop. A few minutes later, however, the patrolman who called for help manages to catch his prey unassisted, though the driver assaults him, so Mr Hawkins goes looking for the suspicious pick-up truck. There was someone in it using what looked like a Border Patrol radio, he explains, which could mean that it was a people-smuggler.

Mr Hawkins's instincts are shrewd, but wrong. The pick-up's driver is using a Border Patrol radio because he is, in fact, a Border Patrol agent, who had impounded the vehicle after finding two dozen illegal aliens squeezed in the back. Their disguise was averagely cunning. They came in a convoy: two pick-ups, each with a sheet of plywood over the bed, painted the same colour as the truck itself to make it look like the bed was empty, when in fact it was packed with Mexicans. Some 40 of them—men, women and children—sit glumly beneath a mesquite tree, waiting to be processed. The one smuggler who failed to escape into the roadside bushes stands even more glumly to one side, in handcuffs.

A few miles away and 11 days later, on November 28th, George Bush gave a speech about illegal immigration. “America has always been a compassionate nation that values the newcomer and takes great pride in our immigrant heritage,” the president told patrolmen at an air base in Tucson, Arizona. “Yet we're also a nation built on the rule of law, and those who enter the country illegally violate the law. The American people should not have to choose between a welcoming society and a lawful society. We can have both.”

He then outlined a plan to curb illegal immigration without starving the fruit-picking and construction industries of labour, and without offering “amnesty” to illegals currently on American soil. Given how upset people get about this issue, how hard it is to tackle and how deeply it divides Mr Bush's own party, political strategists might doubt Mr Bush's wisdom in making it the last big domestic battle of a wretched year. For Americans outside the Beltway, however, the questions are: “Is it a good plan?” and “Will it work?”.

The problem is familiar. Unlike other rich countries, the United States shares a long border with a poor and populous neighbour. According to the Pew Hispanic Centre, nearly 500,000 unskilled migrants arrive every year to do the kind of strenuous, low-paid jobs that Americans shun. Yet the United States issues only 5,000 visas a year for unskilled foreigners seeking year-round work. As Tamar Jacoby of the conservative Manhattan Institute explained to the Senate in July: “A Mexican without family in the US who wants to do something other than farm work has virtually no legal way to enter the country. And even a man with family here must wait from six to 22 years for a visa.”

So they come illegally, as the stampede of sandy footprints at popular crossing-points attests. Many are caught, but most aren't. Since the penalty for capture is repatriation, the only deterrent to trying again is the $1,500 a head the “coyotes” or smugglers charge. Coyote gangs do not hesitate to beat, rob or kill migrants who enter “their” territory without paying.

Meanwhile, many other foreigners enter America legally but then either stay on after their visas have expired or work when they are not supposed to. All told, there are an estimated 11m “illegal aliens”.

Many Americans do not mind. The illegals undoubtedly boost the economy. They wash dishes more cheaply than locals would, benefiting anybody who ever goes to a restaurant. Without Mexicans, vegetables would go unpicked and nursing homes would be filthy. But others object strongly to illegal immigration. Three reasons are usually cited.

The first is economic. The middle classes may love illegal gardeners, but many unskilled Americans fear being displaced by them, or forced to accept lower wages. “Keep them fools out,” says Alvin Pablo, an unemployed landscaper in Tucson, who says that Mexicans took his job. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the negative effect of migrants on the wages of unskilled Americans was less clear, and probably lower, than people imagine: it reduced them by something between zero and 10%. But this will hardly comfort Mr Pablo, who favours erecting a huge fence along the border.

The second gripe about America's porous borders is that they might let terrorists in. A Texan lawmaker claimed this month that al-Qaeda operatives have moved to Mexico, learned Spanish and been caught slipping into the United States disguised as economic migrants. Mr Bush mentioned terrorism twice in his speech in Tucson.

The third complaint about illegal aliens is that they are illegal. The failure to enforce immigration laws undermines the rule of law itself. Or, as many employers would put it, the fact that America does not issue enough visas to unskilled workers forces them to break the law.

Mr Bush is trying to please as many grumblers as he can. His plan is two-pronged: he wants to tighten controls at the border, while simultaneously relieving pressure on it by “creating a legal channel for those who enter America to do an honest day's labour,” through a new temporary worker programme.

More guards, more permits
For the first prong, Mr Bush is relying on cash and technology. He boasted this week of having increased funding for border security by 60% since taking office. True enough, but, as Ms Jacoby told the Senate, the number of Border Patrol agents has tripled since 1986, and their budget risen tenfold, without noticeably staunching the flow of illegals.

Mr Bush argued that “cutting-edge equipment like overhead surveillance drones” can give agents a “broader reach”. The border patrollers agree. An unmanned spy plane can hover over the border for 10-12 hours, beams Michael Nicely, the Border Patrol chief for the Tucson sector. His men have all manner of gizmos, from “stop sticks” that slowly deflate the tyres of fleeing cars to “pepperball launching systems”—glorified paintball guns that immobilise rowdy smugglers.

Captured migrants sometimes have no idea how they were spotted. Carmen Vasquez, interviewed in a holding pen in Nogales, says she was tip-toeing through the mountains with her family after dark when she was suddenly surrounded by Border Patrol agents on roaring quad bikes. Agent Hawkins explains (though not to Ms Vasquez) that she was seen through an infra-red camera on a distant hilltop. “Don't let anyone tell you we can't control our borders,” says Mr Nicely, “We just need more resources.” He mentions lights, fences, infra-red cameras and helicopters (of which he already has 53—four times more than are available to help feed Sudan's stricken Darfur region).

As well as catching more illegals, Mr Bush wants to deal more rationally with those who are caught. He wants to end “catch and release”, the policy whereby four-fifths of non-Mexican illegals, when caught, are released pending an appearance before a judge, to which 75% of them fail to show up. He also touted the success of a pilot scheme in west Arizona where illegal Mexicans, instead of being repatriated to border towns, were flown and then bused back to their hometowns. With further to walk, only 8% of the 35,000 deportees so dealt with were caught again.

But can more gadgets and tougher rules beat market forces? As she waited to be “voluntarily repatriated”, Ms Vasquez said she would like to come back soon. Her sister, she said, makes $1,000 a month cleaning hotel rooms in Florida—ten times what she could earn back home.

Which brings us to the more controversial, and promising, part of Mr Bush's plan. To “match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill jobs that Americans will not do”, he proposes letting illegal aliens currently in America register for legal status. After paying fines and back taxes, they would then be allowed to work for a fixed period, after which they would have to return home. He insisted that this would not constitute an “amnesty”. Right-wingers said it did. “Now we've finally caught the president in a lie,” fumed Neal Boortz, a talk-radio host.

Whether a temporary worker scheme gets off the ground depends on Congress. The Senate is soon to consider two bills. One, sponsored by John McCain (an Arizona Republican) and Ted Kennedy (a Democrat from Massachusetts), calls for a guest-worker programme much like Mr Bush's. The other, sponsored by John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, both Republicans, lays more emphasis on enforcement. This week, Mr Bush praised both Mr McCain and Mr Kyl.

However the bills are blended together, a guest-worker programme will work only if it meets two criteria. First, it must allow a realistic number of temporary work permits—enough to match the demand for migrant labour. Second, employers who hire illegals must be punished, as they rarely have been in the past. Mr Bush touted a programme called “Basic Pilot”, which allows firms to check with a federal database to see whether a prospective worker is legal. And he boasted that swoops on worksites under “Operation Rollback”, which was “completed” this year, resulted in the arrest of hundreds of illegal aliens and convictions against a dozen employers.

Hundreds of arrests, when the total number of illegals is around 11m? That is the kind of number that enrages Chris Simcox, the head of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border and organises protests much further inside the country (such as outside a day centre for illegal aliens in Virginia, where they can hook up with employers). He fumes at the “hypocrisy” of “a federal government that will not enforce the rule of law”. He adds: “That's going to lead to anarchy, [and] out-of-control cultural change in this country.”

The mainstream media paint the Minutemen as spiteful and clueless vigilantes. One of them dressed an illegal alien in a T-shirt with the slogan: “Bryan Barton caught me crossing the border and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”. Against this, Mr Barton was expelled, and in parts of conservative America Minutemen are heroes. A recent CBS poll found that 75% of Americans—and 87% of Republicans—think more should be done to keep illegal aliens out. That is why Mr Bush has to sound tough.

But not only tough. For a start, the Republicans are keen to woo Latino voters, who are quick to punish politicians who bash their immigrant cousins. Moreover, conservative whites are not as xenophobic as their bumper stickers. They may wax indignant about the need for higher fences, but when asked detailed questions about what should happen to the illegals already in the United States, they quickly turn pragmatic. A recent poll of likely Republican voters by the Manhattan Institute found that only a third favoured mass deportations, and only 13% thought it was possible to deport all 11m illegals.

Most encouragingly for Mr Bush, when asked if they would favour a comprehensive bill that included both tougher enforcement (at the border, and in workplaces) and a way for illegals to get temporary work permits that might, with good behaviour, lead to citizenship, 72% of these Republicans said yes. The tired, poor, huddled masses are still welcome.
 
You know, it's funny how the Economist first tries to say that "The illegals undoubtedly boost the economy", twice over, and then make a fairly unfounded and shitty reasoning for those who have been undercut for illegal immigrant wages - and then don't bother to say how they are helping the economy at all despite the fact that most people can easily name a half-dozen sinkholes and problems they create that make "boost [to] the economy" rather laughable and insane. As if those silver spoon people know what the fuck they are talking about except when they look outside to see the wetback mowing their lawn. The only thing these articulate idiots understand is "He works cheaper to mow our lawn, so therefore it must be cheaper all around for farmers to hire illegal workers!"

Not only is that tragically ignorant, it is wholly without any basis. Illegals do not keep the price of produce down, nor do they help produce production - they just save farmers and someone else in the industry a bit of overhead. The end consumer sees nothing of this, the spin-doctors like these forgetting the real cost of that bushel of oranges also comes at the cost of having to pay for the anchor babies and to raise all twelve of them on welfare, while Daddy sits in jail because he was caught holding up a convenience store with the rest of the illegal "Los Vatos" gang.

Illegals don't just exist in farming and landscaping, hotel maids, etc. There are significantly more jobs they take, as I doubt the US somehow CREATES ~3 MIL farming and landscaping jobs a year, and I wonder how the economy is supposed to be doing so well when the avarage illegal, including the jailed ones and his family on welfare, is COSTING the US taxpayers at about $50k apiece.

Oh, and I love the police being stopped from being able to go after murderering illegals, because of sanctuary policies with the Federal government. So that means the police aren't doing anything about these killers. So sorry, taxpayers, but your raped and dead grandmother gets our sympathies.

The Economist also seems to neglect to mention the real points - that Bush was previously just going to sell out the US citizens with the "Guanajuato Proposal". (Gotta love it...so now US employers can auction off US jobs to wetbacks and other illegals - LEGALLY AND GLOBALLY! Now the US citizens are being sold into unemployment for the sake of the lowest bidder who also fills the politician's pockets. Damn, how much more until we get full-on union rioting? I want to see that - aside from the old newspaper incidents of people rioting because the same shit was done in the 30's and early 40's for awhile.) So is it just Bush spinning around and laying down more lies, or is he developing a clue, or just again talking out of both sides of his ass again and the situation is still as fucked with a new overcoat, like the "War on Terror"? Hell, Bush's first proposal CAUSED the current mass of illegals swarming into the country, who now can't find a job, and who are now turning towards more crime and filling gangs.

"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of it." -- Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo at the National Council of La Raza (The Race) Soiree, Chicago on July 23, 1997
 
You're racist Roshambo! RACIST! This country is a result of immigration so that means now, in this day and age, hordes of criminally inclined illegal immigrants will only benefit the country, and you are racist if you think otherwise.

::shoots self::

...

Roshambo said:
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of it." -- Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo at the National Council of La Raza (The Race) Soiree, Chicago on July 23, 1997

The people of Mexico have been told how the Norte Americanos have stolen their country's land and wealth. For all the years of their schooling their teachers repeat the stories of how Mexico has the right to reclaim its land. They have been told of how their brothers and sisters were winning the battle and that they soon would take back California, Arizona and New Mexico.

And that it was all being done one small step at a time. And the truth is…they really are doing it.

Above quote's source

And it continues even after they've become citizens
 
Back
Top