After Hours

Ask something
Discussion Locked

On illegal immigration part 2

0 helpful
59 replies

by lars_honeytoast 2 views

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The first discussion was gettinga little crowded.
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=330051&tag=results;CR56

Here are two thoughts:

The "poor and wretched" of the earth make up literally billions of people. Should they all move to the USA? How many people can Americans take in before the country falls apart?

Thomas Sowell puts it this way: "We continue to hear about the 'need' for immigrants to do jobs that Americans will not do ? even though these are all jobs that Americans have done for generations before mass illegal immigration became a way of life. Bombings in London, Madrid and the 9/11 terrorist attacks here are all part of the high price being paid today for decades of importing human time bombs from the Arab world. That in turn has been the fruit of an unwillingness to filter out people according to the countries they come from. Europeans and Americans have for decades been playing Russian roulette with their loose immigration policies. The intelligentsia have told us that it would be wrong, and even racist, to set limits based on where the immigrants come from. There are thousands of Americans who might still be alive if we had banned immigration from Saudi Arabia and perhaps that might be more important than the rhetoric of the intelligentsia."

59 replies

by ansugisalas

You mean that Osama is mad at you because, what? His nephew snuck into the states and got mugged in the Bronx? What?

Did you even think that through? If you did, please explain how immigration to the US causes terrorism (excepting white supremacy terrorism and Timothy McVeigh-type crap that has nothing to do with arabs).

The US-government screwing over the "outside world" has very little to do with immigration, illegal or otherwise.

Osama was part of that. Reagan sent him to afghanistan, remember? Even had a photo-op, and called them Patriots, far as I recall. What a sucker. He should have stuck with Bedtime for Bonzo.

by charliespencer

"The first discussion was getting a little crowded."

Lars, that sucker was barely a couple of hundred posts long. Stick around; several times a year we'll have one get into the thousands. A couple of legendary ones pushed five figures. ('E Lie', anyone?)

Seriously, it's considered poor form here at TR to start a second discussion while the original is still active. The consensus here is that it's easier to keep up with one oversized discussion than multiple smaller ones. Other sites may feel differently.

by lars_honeytoast

Thank you for letting me the know the regular form here. Being my status is still that of a green bean, I don't know the regularity of the TR.

by charliespencer

If that's the worst etiquette transgression committed by 'newbies' this year, it will be cause for celebration. It's just part of learning the landscape.

by santeewelding

Your position -- twice, you said -- is not yours, but Sowell's.

I read Sowell. You don't come close.

by lars_honeytoast

I agree with Sowell on this topic, so my position is parallel with Sowell. I also wanted to dialogue with others and let my position further develop that way; maybe I was too brief in my post?

by santeewelding

To an extent that you did not differentiate to my eye.

Nor, tell that you were catapulted by his, or he by yours.

Happens when, with nothing else, you align with (greater) than you are able. Means, lesser, too.

I don't fault you for citing Sowell (the black guy who don't take no shilt from anyone -- plenty, that he has, to dish out on his own).

I fault you for bringing him to fore that you may have assumed needed bringing, to the unwashed.

I, for one, and I am sure there are others, bathe daily in the matters of the day.

by nicknielsen

Although I think you said you wanted to open the borders with Mexico.

Second, if you're going to start a new thread that is related to an existing thread, forum etiquette strongly suggests you link back to the original thread.

by ansugisalas

He said expand them into mexico... as in send in the cavalry, roll out the heavy machinery and conquer for Queen Mary, or Uncle Sam, whichever. Imperialism without a clue: why own what you can, and do, already pwn?

I think he meant to start a bizzarro version of the original, where the goofball versions of the "real" arguments can be set free. Could be cathartic, could be retarded.

by nicknielsen

But I suspect we'd more likely get cathartically retarded or retardedly cathartic.

---

Sh|t! It's already started! :^0

by lars_honeytoast

What is wrong with acquiring Mexico as our own?

If we insist on letting them stay here in America, we will need more land.

by lars_honeytoast

Palmetto instructed me on forum etiquette, but I appreciate you letting me know too.

We shouldn't allow illegal immigration with the existing border of the United States because countries that don’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens cannot long survive.

by charliespencer

Remember, the forum traditions and practices here may not apply to other sites. TR's sister site, ZDNet, had a much lower tolerance for off-topic posts (like this 'etiquette' branch of an immigration discussion!). Other sites may not allow off-topic discussions at all, such as discussing immigration at tech site.

It's often a good idea to 'lurk' at a site for a couple of weeks before jumping into the deep end. This can give you an impression of the locally accepted standards.

Oh, and if you haven't already seen them, you might want to check out the official FAQ and the unofficial New Users Guide:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/1200-10871-5757160.html

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/techofalltrades/?p=152

And welcome to the asylum.

by santeewelding

To those of us no longer able to lay our finger on those singular articles of knowledge we once thought so almightily important.

by ansugisalas

It will not but speed up the inevitable.
You are a democracy remember?
That's the only point of the "illegal" part of immigration that holds a modicum of worth: it does not entitle to vote.
Annex mexico and you're over that hurdle. On the positive side, it will end your concerns about Indian Helpdesk, the indian techs advantage in speaking english well doesn't help them when all your helpdesks need to know spanish too.

by otaku_lord

The United States of American is not now nor has it EVER been a democracy. We are a Republic. This means we have elected officials who are SUPPOSED to vote for their constituents according to how the majority sways.

Also, there is a LEGAL way of immigrating to the US of A which is intended to prevent undesirable (criminals, mentally unstable, etc) individuals from coming into the country. By circumventing this process you set yourself up to have the issues that the UK, the US, and other countries are having with extremists of every kind.

As for Indian, Pakistani, Bangledeshi, and similar helpdesks, their English isn?t all THAT great?

by jfuller05

As for Indian, Pakistani, Bangledeshi, and similar helpdesks, their English isn't all THAT great?

That's an understatement! lol

by nicknielsen

[i]We are a Republic. This means we have elected officials who are SUPPOSED to vote for their constituents according to how the majority sways.[/i]

We have elected officials who are [u]supposed[/u] to govern to the benefit of [b]all[/b] Americans, not just their constituents, [u]in spite of[/u] public opinion. That they haven't the political balls to govern that way and are doing as you describe is the reason we're in the fix we are in.

Were they supposed to vote based on the majority sway, a pure democracy would be sufficient.

by ansugisalas

To say that a republic is not a democracy is like saying that a federation is not a meritocracy. They can be both. You have voting rights : i.e. you're a democracy, if you absorb a large population, then you shift your own voting scales. See?

The thing you attribute to the term republic is called "representative democracy"; you elect (democratically) officials who represent their voters, but in fact have free hands to do as they will with the power. It's not something that's unique to republics.
If this kind of representative system is not democratic it's called a feudal society or an oligarchy or a number of other things depending on the specifics.

by tonythetiger

[i]This means we have elected officials who are SUPPOSED to vote for their constituents according to how the majority sways.[/i]

They're supposed to vote in their constituents' best interest (not necessarily the same as how the constituents would vote).

Of course, they fail in that often enough to make it annoying.

by ansugisalas

16,89.
Same population size as my native Denmark which has 126,36... small country, large country... neither one a big country though, strictly small fry ;)

by lars_honeytoast

"Land, we got. Not all of it's livable, but we got it."

That's what I was thinking.

Perhaps, I should have phrased my thoughts differently? :)

by charliespencer

What do we want with more desert, and another major city located at the base of an active volcano? The last thing the EPA needs is more endangered rain forest to manage.

Oh, and then there's Juarez...

by nicknielsen

The major reason they come is there are jobs here. And, although those jobs don't pay enough for Americans to want to work them, they pay very well compared to what's available around the migrants' homes.

What we're doing now isn't solving the problem. As long as Americans won't take those jobs, the migrants will. And unfortunately, a formal guest-worker program would probably soon be buried in bureaucracy. Now what?

by lars_honeytoast

I'll take it and apply it to my future posts the best I can.

I'm always ready to learn, if it's worth learning, and your post seems to help.

by saurondor

I think your two points are two shallow to cover the depth of the situation.

First, regarding employment. You fail to factor in the wage. Americans will do jobs that illegals are doing, but not at illegal immigrant wages and without proper benefits. Illegals are hired (by Americans) to do jobs cheaper. Illegal status conveys power to the employer and is thus beneficial to "the system".

Secondly, regarding terrorist acts. Do you honestly believe special force units ask for a visa when going on ops abroad? They drop in, get it done and then extract. Period. Same will apply to terrorists operating on US soil (be them foreign or national). It's war man, nobody is going to be playing "by the rules".

Hitting hard on a large group of people just trying to make a living isn't going to help prevent terrorism. Which is caused by a whole different set of reasons.

by nicknielsen

Not only are the economics pretty much insurmountable (can you imagine all those workers suddenly making the U.S minimum wage and being paid in dollars?), the last thing we need is to enlarge Congress. It's already hard enough to get anything productive done there.

Territories might work, though. They make their own laws, but can't vote here. :D

by charliespencer

"...although those jobs don't pay enough for Americans to want to work them, they pay very well compared to what's available around the migrants' homes."

In some cases they pay better than those jobs we exported to Mexico. Large employers shipped jobs south to save money by paying less than US minimum wages. If they'd paid more than minimum but less than the union-negotiated rates, those migrants may have stayed home.

by dr dij

is to improve the human condition in all countries.

Mexico is a cesspool of official corruption which impedes business investment, and lack of enforcement to eliminate drug lords who also extort biz in whole towns, even telling homeowners to give them a percent when they sell!

This was just an example of why immigrants want to come here and we need to export a well run country. Not just making sure htey have meaningless elections but institutions to ensure hte rights of the average person and encourage improvements and investments in their own countries.

We see the effect of massive amounts of very poor people coming to the LA area, some very poor commit random horrid crimes, sometimes from desperation. The macarthur park area of LA is filled with people who churn out fake IDs, fake fraudulent food aid cards, sell stolen credit cards, drugs, etc. And recent immigrants are often sucked into these types of 'jobs'. Too many people here and the country will become a teeming slum like some poor countries urban areas.

by charliespencer

was jd's divorce. I can't find it either. That surprised me, since it was mentioned at last summer's get-together as an example of the strength of the community.

I can find portions of The Thread That Shall Not Be Named in web archives, but not the whole thing. I occasionally wonder if Jay archived it somewhere, but have never been motivated enough to ask.

by otaku_lord

it wouldn't be a pure democracy... when you have people voting for you by proxy then it is a Republic. In a democracy, every legal person's (depends on the laws at the time and the location this could exclude women, blacks, etc.) vote is tallied and counted.

In a Republic, an elected official is set up who is SUPPOSED to vote by proxy for the area or region he represents. He doesn't have to give a flip about the next state over or the next region or whatever... only the people he DIRECTLY represents.

by nicknielsen

My problem was with the way you describe how the representatives are supposed to base their votes. Basing votes on what the constituents want (polls) is how we got where we are; if that's all the representatives are supposed to do, why do we need a republic? Get rid of that added layer and let the people vote themselves bread and circuses.

The representative is supposed to know that, sometimes, what's good for the folks at home today is not what's best for the folks at home in the long run.

edit: delayed proofread

by deepsand

While no clear premise is here set forth, it is clear that, while maxwell's thread dealt with the narrow subject relating to US-Mexican transnational migration, it is here intended that a global perspective be taken.

Presuming that my appraisal in this regard is correct, it is suggested that a clear premise or question be presented.

by nicknielsen

It will be an interesting thread. I wonder how many immigrants and descendants thereof will come out against same...

by michael jay

but that is ok.

Are you ever going to present your own feelings on the subject?

Or perhaps what you think should be done.

I don't think so.

by deepsand

the fact that it is obvious that:

he is addressing an issue he raised elsewhere; and,
such clearly goes beyond the scope of that thread.

If and when I acquire telepathic powers, I might speak for him; until then, I wait.

by lars_honeytoast

as all of you know, jobs can be busy at times. What is most troubling is that I feel, a part of me, thinking Tech Republic is more important than setting up POS systems for clients!

Anyway, Deepsand is correct in stating that a global perspective is intended in my rather ambiguous post that started this second thread from the earlier, "On illegal immigration" started by Michael Jay. What I want to ask is:

1. Should we allow illegal immigration, rather should we allow mass immigration?

2. If we allow this mass illegal immigration to the United States, should we allow the people to continue speaking their native language?

3. Shouldn't we attempt to assimilate them to our language?

4. The "poor and wretched" of the earth make up literally billions of people. Should they all move to the USA? How many people can Americans take in before the country falls apart?

edit: We is understood as U.S.

by nicknielsen

[i]...me, thinking Tech Republic is more important than setting up POS systems for clients! [/i]

You mean it isn't? :_|

by boxfiddler Hot topic

I have a personal copy that I'll sell for dark chocolate ice cream in a waffle bowl. :|

by santeewelding

One of the true, genuine, really, actual, justifiable reasons I see to keep something on a computer.

Not that I'm interested, but, what are the dimensions of this bowl?

by boxfiddler Hot topic

It's on the data disk of the desktop that crashed. In Word, so probably live links. I don't recall for sure. And if I don't recall that, I sure can't tell you how many kb it is. :^0

I really need to rebuild.

Hmmm. It may be on disk somewhere. I backed it up shortly before it crashed. I'll dig a bit for it this weekend. After I get the rest of the garden in.

4" diameter on the waffle bowl. Two large scoops, please. :D

etu
etu again:
sandy - EL?

by boxfiddler Hot topic

that bums me out. A bunch of stuff has gone missing and I want it back. X-(

by nicknielsen

Very reasonable, and even rational.
Only one problem: in the current political climate, reasonable isn't an option when discussing the solution to [u]any[/u] issue.

This discussion is closed to new replies.